I posted as IC 4828 and 4824, but it was wrong. What a mess I did !
I was very tired and I swear, I believed that the tele was pointed at IC 4828 ! These galaxies are very near. I was finding some issues with the resolution and distance between galaxies, but only when I published in Astrobin I perceived the error.
This photo has more lights, but I prefer the first, published in previously post.
Since the identification is correct now... why not publish it ?
G'day Jorge,
Nice image. Can I ask though, in the bottom right hand corner, diagonally down to the left of the bright star is a very faint smudge.
If I didn't know any better I'd have thought it was a very (very) faint spiral galaxy as it's that sort of shape.
Mind you it could be my eyes.
regards.
Despite this photo has 20 lights with 4 minutes, and same ISO 400, I didn't work well in processing. The other, previous, with only 11 lights is very very better.
I will try a repro... I have more signal here ... why I didn't get better result ? Perhaps the answer is in HDR curve to convert Autosave.tif 32 bits DSS to 16 bits Photoshop. I didn't boost the faint background.
Hi again Jorge,
Glad it wasn't my eyes and yep agree, the other shot is very impressive.
I'm not sure what magnitude we're talking about here but they have to be faint objects to be IC & ESO catalogues.
Funny how you can get better results with less at times.
Despite this photo has 20 lights with 4 minutes, and same ISO 400, I didn't work well in processing. The other, previous, with only 11 lights is very very better.
I will try a repro... I have more signal here ... why I didn't get better result ? Perhaps the answer is in HDR curve to convert Autosave.tif 32 bits DSS to 16 bits Photoshop. I didn't boost the faint background.
ESO 141-G042 - size: 3.0' x 0.5' - magnitude: 14.5
IC 4833 - size: 0.5' x 0.4' - magnitude: 12.7
IC 3831 - size: 4.0' x 1.3' - magnitude: 14.0
You can see the photos from catalogs and some few information about these objects in http://www.messier45.com . Type the name of object in the search box. It is a great site ! If you don't know... you must try it !
My Canon 350D (Rebel XT) doesn't work with my last version of BackyarEOS, therefore I work with EOS Utility from Canon and I use ZoomBrowser - old version 1.3 that has the ressource to zoom the image up to 800 x.
I use the spikes to check the focus. If it is ok, the spikes are equal and thin. Nevertheless, some times this procedure doesn't work well, because there aren't a star with spike near the object target. Or it is binary. Or I have only a bright star near. The focus with bright star is a little different of the faint stars. Faint stars needs better focus.
And now, a repro with better work with HDR. As I found another galaxy, IC 4828, I increased the field to show it.
I rotate the canvas vertical and horizontal to be at the same position of the previous post, that has good resolution.
Because of large amount of lights I had problem with vignetting, and I haven't flat files for sensor without IR filter, yet. I haven't, also, a good custom white balance to reduce the redish appearance of photo. This was problem in processing the 20 lights.
GSO 305mm - Canon 350D (mod) - ISO 400 - 20 x 4 min (1 h 20 min) - OAG - Skyglow filter - Coma corrector
A Bahtinov mask is no good for stars that faint or small?
I had a look at the website http://www.messier45.com/# that you recommended, thanks, it is a good site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmoraes
My Canon 350D (Rebel XT) doesn't work with my last version of BackyarEOS, therefore I work with EOS Utility from Canon and I use ZoomBrowser - old version 1.3 that has the ressource to zoom the image up to 800 x.
I use the spikes to check the focus. If it is ok, the spikes are equal and thin. Nevertheless, some times this procedure doesn't work well, because there aren't a star with spike near the object target. Or it is binary. Or I have only a bright star near. The focus with bright star is a little different of the faint stars. Faint stars needs better focus.
And now, a repro with better work with HDR. As I found another galaxy, IC 4828, I increased the field to show it.
I rotate the canvas vertical and horizontal to be at the same position of the previous post, that has good resolution.
Because of large amount of lights I had problem with vignetting, and I haven't flat files for sensor without IR filter, yet. I haven't, also, a good custom white balance to reduce the redish appearance of photo. This was problem in processing the 20 lights.
GSO 305mm - Canon 350D (mod) - ISO 400 - 20 x 4 min (1 h 20 min) - OAG - Skyglow filter - Coma corrector
I tried masks, and I perceived that they help, but don't are absolute.
You need to evaluate the final result without them. It is the same with FWHM.
If you have refraction, the shape in masks and values in FWHM change continuously. They say: you are very near, and now it is your responsibility to accept the focus !
I prefer to use the FWHM, but as Canon 350D doesn't have live view ... With my Canon T3 I use FWHM.
I use the mask to get it as close as possible and use FWHM as well but find it very difficult to get it to settle, the figures jump around a lot. I use a Canon 550D and generally get good results but have not tried getting objects that faint yet. Hopefully soon though.
