I have a couple of image acquisitions on the go, hopefully finish them eventually but last Saturday it was lots of high cloud (it stayed like this all through the night) and in the afternoon I thought it would be a lost night...but meah, it didn't get much worse than that photo after dark, so I decided to hit something relatively bright, so it might have a chance of revealing something through all the high crud, so... Gabby got the nod
Due to the inability to actually see the high cloud at such a dark location and in terms of stars and Milky Way visibility, it was a strange night of looking up at what appeared to be a pretty clear night sky but it wasn't, simulating a variable Bortle level, ranging from about Bortle 3 to 5 throughout the night, was really weird.... in the end, I managed to put something respectable together
Anyway, apart from a short period around midnight, when for about an hour it dipped below 2", the seeing was not the usual steady sub 2" I have enjoyed regularly up at Eagleview to date, instead ranging from 1.9" to 2.4" across the 6hrs, so still a tad better than my previous observatory site but more mortal levels and I used every single 5min sub frame collected.
Also, all acquisition details are under the image but...no steroids (ie. BlurEx et al) were used in the processing of this image
I couldn't decide on my favourite orientation and crop...so here are two:
For those who don't know where the name of this nebula comes from, seems it reminded someone long ago of the head profile of the famous Chilean poet named Gabriella Mistral and I recon its a pretty good match
Mike
Last edited by strongmanmike; 24-03-2023 at 01:26 PM.
Well despite your problem with high cloud, you wouldn't know from the result you got Mike. Very nicely done and well worth persevering through the night. I know what you mean about the sky appearing clear but on a second or third glance there's just something up there making it look a bit opaque. Good to see you posting images from your newly completed observatory.
Nice picture Mike,
it's good that you got some imaging time with all the clouds lately.
We've had nothing but clouds in Melbourne
and only clouds predicted for at least one more week.
Lovely image Mike- beautiful colour and stars still really nice and no bloating even give your conditions. I attempted a night imaging out of Sydney last week (B4 sky) but got fogged out. Couldn’t see it at first but funny how there’s an unmistakable smell to the air as it builds…
Well despite your problem with high cloud, you wouldn't know from the result you got Mike. Very nicely done and well worth persevering through the night. I know what you mean about the sky appearing clear but on a second or third glance there's just something up there making it look a bit opaque. Good to see you posting images from your newly completed observatory.
Cheers Michael, I've enjoyed the visual observations too, an 18" under a good dark sky provides great views, love it
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
Nice picture Mike,
it's good that you got some imaging time with all the clouds lately.
We've had nothing but clouds in Melbourne
and only clouds predicted for at least one more week.
cheers
Allan
Yeah, shame about all the high cloud, with no Moon, I really wanted to hit my favourite, galaxies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave882
Lovely image Mike- beautiful colour and stars still really nice and no bloating even give your conditions. I attempted a night imaging out of Sydney last week (B4 sky) but got fogged out. Couldn’t see it at first but funny how there’s an unmistakable smell to the air as it builds…
Thanks Mate, yes, well up at Eagleview, we find ourselves "inside" any low cloud reasonably regularly. it's like I imagined the top of The Magic Far Away Tree, when I was a kid...Hmmm?..I think The Lands of Topsy Turvy and Take-What-You-Want created the most vivid visuals in my mind
- a bit hard to compare 1.2M with James Webb's 140M version though
Thanks Andy ... but naaah yer wong mate, Webb's focal length is actually a veeeery short 131.4m ...but, and even with a 6.5m mirror, at infrared wavelengths, its resolution is a positively blurry 0.1" (roughly the same as Hubble at visual wavelengths I think?)...well, according to here anyway..?
Mike
Last edited by strongmanmike; 25-03-2023 at 05:20 PM.
Looks really nice on the large version on the Flickr page! The IIS version is so small on my 4K monitor, three of my fingers put together are wider! Great result.
Looks really nice on the large version on the Flickr page! The IIS version is so small on my 4K monitor, three of my fingers put together are wider! Great result.
Thanks Craig ..yeah, I only ever attach a small thumbnail of an image to the thread, just so a little picture of it appears next to the thread title Ya gotta click on the links in the thread to see the big'un's. Hmmm?...I hope everyone knows this??....and doesn't think that, that's it..?? ?
...snip
Also, all acquisition details are under the image but...no steroids (ie. BlurEx et al) were used in the processing of this image
snip...
Lovely image Mike. What I would do for dark, clear skies... So does your no steroids comment mean no sharpening at all,or just a tad of non-AI sharpening..?
Lovely image Mike. What I would do for dark, clear skies... So does your no steroids comment mean no sharpening at all,or just a tad of non-AI sharpening..?
Kevin
Thanks Kevin ... firstly, dark skies don't help that much, with narrowband imaging and there are plenty of examples of deep narrowband images taken from city skies, especially with 6nm or less band pass filters, however, it really comes into its own and once the Moon is not around, when you want to shoot for faint broadband signal, like faint tenuous dusty fields and galaxies, tidal streams etc. Exposures can be significantly shorter for the same signal to noise ratio too and you can just get that bit deeper. Also, dark skies mean that you aren't dealing with significant gradients and rarely need to resort to gradient removal, that isn't dealt with already by your flats
My comment re no steroids is just a bit of fun, I'm seeing what AI sharpening like Topaz and BlurEx is doing to images (and I don't have access to either) and I'm feeling like it's almost a bit fake or kinda a check box/slider adjust, form of cheating..?..(it's not, I know... just exaggerating for clarity). I use more traditional Lucy-Richardson deconvolution in Astroart (or not, depending on the object/field) sometimes some unsharp mask in Astroart and smart sharpening in PS CS3+...ie, just good'ol fashioned health food store supplements, not black market equine steroids It's really just a bit of humour, AI sharpening is here and here to stay but I can now clearly see when it has been used in images, it imparts a characteristic "look" you could say...or, in other words, my eye is being AI trained, so to speak, to detect when it has been used
Mike
Last edited by strongmanmike; 26-03-2023 at 01:29 PM.
but last Saturday it was 
in the end, I managed to put something respectable together 
..and doesn't think that, that's it..?? 
? 
