[jase (Jason)]

Feedback is invaluable - I always listen to critiques. As such, I've presented the alternate version based on some feedback - not all, as there are aspects of the image I like. The same link can be used to view this rendition, my apologies to those who did not get to see the original to make a comparison. I should clarify that I did not reprocess the image from scratch. This is one of the many renditions I had created, but wasn't happy with some aspects. I have since remedied these as a result. Whether or not I've hit the mark expected of others is not the goal, but more the value of thought provoking feedback.

Two main differences have resulted. I added a third stronger deconvolution layer and HPF mask to give the galaxies further definition. Secondly, I duplicated the base RGB layer, moved to the top of the layer stack as colour blend mode. Then performed two iterations of shadow/highlights to both stretch and colour saturate the data. This has provided a subtle colour boost, in particular brought out the HII regions and dust lanes. I don't think this is the most optimal way, but in processing, there is always more than one way to get the same result. The image has been reduced to 71% of original size to give you are larger FOV (equals more of those noteworthy background fuzzies).

Originally Posted by AlexN

Happy 2000th post, and yes, it was used to perfection!

Nailing anything at 3315mm FL is a fair feat! Processing, colors and detail are all fantastic! Very nice indeed.

Thanks Alex. I didn't realise I was approaching the post milestone until yesterday. Just so happens that I was working on this image over the past week and both coincided. Pleased you liked the image.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Now you are always honest with me "and" you are using the best and have great skills and I know ya like it straight and in minute detail ... soooo I am gunna be brutally honest

I can take it Mike, if I couldn't, I wouldn't be posting the image to this forum.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

The colours look just a little dirty and mute to me too with the galaxy cores having a strange and somewhat mute burned orange colour and the arms are a funny muted blue colour . There is certainly some nice detail and you have clearly put a bit of processing work into it but I think the focal length and seeing probably just weren't quite in agreement on this outing as the detail or feature deliniation isn't as good as would perhaps have been expected from this configuration?

Good feedback in which I've taken aboard (and "attempted" to remedy). I have to say, overall the data was pretty good.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

For comparison here is a simple 60min of Lum on the trio with a 6" F7.5 1140mm FL scope from suburban skies (ignore the un-flatted dust donnuts) with only DDP applied and no other processing....there isn't much difference in the res to me?
http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...54137/original

Theoretically, you have better sampling for the conditions at 1.13 arcsecs/pixel - while I doubt you'd be getting that resolution at the cover slip. The 14.5" RC is delivering 0.56 arcsecs/pixel even less than ideal, but what the RC delivers is image scale which is the right recipe for those distant galaxies. I haven't blinked the two images for a closer analysis and not sure how valid this would be given processing distorting the result.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Don't get me wrong it is a pleasing image and well worth the look (thanks) but it's just not what I would be happy with for the cost of producing it, hope that doesn't sound too rude..? again had it not been done with an expensive Pro outfit I wouldn't have been so critical and many will find it pretty good anyway (cause it is) but in this case when you are using the best, paying for it and promoting it, hey, we wanna see the bluddy best man!

Ah Mike, you make the assumption that using the best, delivers the best. If I could be assured that on an expensive pro outfit that I would get quality subs every time and in turn produce wow factor images one after another, I'd be refinancing and standing in line to purchase one (along with everyone else). We both know there are many other factors that can alter the end result.

Appreciate the feedback Mike. Thanks again.

Originally Posted by Dennis

Hi Jase

What an astonishingly captivating image! The detail in the “quartet” trio is quite breathtaking and very nicely processed right down to their cores.

What really bowls me over is the grand vista of the 2400x1800 version, despite having to scroll around my postage stamp sized 1600x1200 monitor!

The plethora of background galaxies is really quite extraordinary; the obvious ones reveal their identity somewhat readily via their non-stellar extension, but there are numerous stellar-like galaxies which give themselves away by their softer profiles compared to the real stars. It’s almost Hubble deep field!

Congrats on the 2000th post – what a way to join the club. As always, thanks for the processing narrative – it’s almost like having a tutor at your elbow.

Cheers

Dennis

Cheers Dennis. I'm certainly pleased with the way DDP handled the faint background galaxies. I don't often use DDP for luminance stretching, but having done some additional reading on its function and mid level adjustment, I'm beginning to get more comfortable with it. I don't incorporate any sharpening as part of the function as I prefer greater control. As you indicate, the background galaxies resolve quite well, even the faint companions. DDP is quite magical in the way it can enhance and/or suppress dynamic range. Thanks too for the 2,000th post congrats - beginning to feel like a part of the furniture! Thanks again.

Originally Posted by AlexN

Haha... Let me do the math on that.... mumble mumble... carry the 4.....?? Bazillions of words???

They sure are some long posts, but not one word more or less than is required to explain everything perfectly.

I will in due time post a few images with no info to up set the apple cart. Blackbox syndrome where you cant see anything going on inside isn't much fun.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Commendable processing effort Jase, though I too suggest the seeing has not helped the data. The image lacks a little colour or "punch" (sorry hard to quantify) for my taste. Interestingly, the background shows no colour noise at all

I've found nights that allow any 12" or larger scope to truly perform are rare indeed. None-the-less beautifully round stars, at over 3 metres FL, is no small feat.

Thanks Peter. Good feedback and similar to Mike's colour comments, I've "attempted" to address them in the revised rendition. Indeed, seeing can be a hit or miss affair - one of the challenges of deep space imaging. There's no freezing the seeing with glorified webcam on a 20 minute sub exposure. Though Lucky imaging may start making greater inroads. Thanks again for your comments.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Ok Ok ...I had another good look Jase and expensive scope time aside, it is a very nice image. The three main galaxies are pretty small I guess and it is a very small field, so yep...not bad

First impressions are important though...your Crab was really good

Mike
trying not to sound like a stick in the mud

Sorry Mike, the damage is done. You're not my friend any more.
NGC7582 - 5.0 x 2.3
NGC7599 - 4.4 x 1.4
NGC7590 - 2.6 x 1.0
Yeah, pretty small - requires focal length if you want details.
"Narrowfield rules" (c) Fred.

Originally Posted by Jen

beautiful pic Jase i would be happy to be able to see these in my scope let alone be able to take a pic of it nice work

Thanks for checking it out Jen! Pleased you liked it.