NGC1365 - Reworked

[jase (Jason)]

Hi All, here is another rework – The Barred Spiral Seyfert - NGC1365 in Fornax.

The reprocessing of this image was with minimalist approach. Started with the calibrated subs and work from there up. Also included some subs collected from Fred’s 10” RC (with permission granted). The 10” RC didn’t match the resolution of the 12.5” RC, but assisted in the data smoothing around the nucleus once upscaled. Brought out the details using multi strength deconvolution blend. Not overly happy with this image for two reasons, a) colour – not enough data to stretch it hard enough without introducing inherent noise; b) The original subs have column defects present. You’d expect that these would be mitigate by dithering and sigma reject combine, however on some subs the defect turned up in the precise location so the combine function did recognise the outlier pixels. Rather frustrating.

Anyway, the presented CWAS print is the full frame, not the offset presented here. Though I don’t mind the aesthetics of the bright star (SOA 194389, Spec. K2III) at the upper left.

Cheers

[Peter Ward]

I like it.

Great Framing.

Technically on the money, and nothing to comment on.

Will we see it do well at CWAS?

Cheers
Peter

[skeltz (Rob)]

Nice image jase good detail in the central region and the outer arms.
And like peter said great framing
It will be interesting to see how the awards go this year!

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I like it.

Great Framing.

Technically on the money, and nothing to comment on.

Will we see it do well at CWAS?

Cheers
Peter

Thanks Peter. Yes, it is one of the CWAS entries.

Originally Posted by rpsastronomy

Nice image jase good detail in the central region and the outer arms.
And like peter said great framing
It will be interesting to see how the awards go this year!

Cheers Rob. It came out ok. More RGB data would have been nice, but I didn't collect anymore on this target. Simply reworked the existing data with new found knowledge on image processing. Indeed, this year will be interesting. Thanks again.

[Ric]

Stunning Jase, it's the spiral arms and their detail that blows me away.

Cheers

[Garyh]

yes lovely composition Jase. Too many of us just plonk things right in the middle to often!
Would look beautiful printed!
cheers

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Yes a great image of this galaxy, a few technical issues but they are really so minor and I am sure you are aware of them and given only a stretch in PS would show them and since illustrating my point would be rather unecessary and patronising and detract from what is the presentation of a beautiful image....breath....I won't

Very lovely!

Mike
sorry, had to have a dig

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by Ric

Stunning Jase, it's the spiral arms and their detail that blows me away.

Cheers

Thanks Ric. I'm pleased with the detail extracted from the data.

Originally Posted by Garyh

yes lovely composition Jase. Too many of us just plonk things right in the middle to often!
Would look beautiful printed!
cheers

Cheers Gary. As previously mentioned, the print is full frame so doesn't exhibit this unique crop with NGC1365 offset. I thought about it, but didn't eventuate. Thanks again.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Yes a great image of this galaxy, a few technical issues but they are really so minor and I am sure you are aware of them and given only a stretch in PS would show them and since illustrating my point would be rather unecessary and patronising and detract from what is the presentation of a beautiful image....breath....I won't

Very lovely!

Mike
sorry, had to have a dig

A dig
Let me have it Mike. I'd prefer people to tell me the truth instead of blowing warm air up my b-side. I can take it. I've already highlighted two issues. If you can see more, tell me about them. While I appreciate people acknowledging my images with praise, I'm looking to step up my imaging a grade. This wont occur without criticism. I take it all on board and consider everything. Thanks for your comments.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Great piccie, but there's a bit of noise (dark current??) in the piccie.... it's noticeable in background. Other than that, it's a really nice job.

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Great piccie, but there's a bit of noise (dark current??) in the piccie.... it's noticeable in background. Other than that, it's a really nice job.

Thanks Renormalised. Yes, I concur regarding the background noise. I was going to do the nasty raise the black point trick in attempt to mask it, but that would have other repercussions. The noise appears low frequency...will try working on this should I gain the courage to reprocess it again.

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Yes a great image of this galaxy, a few technical issues but they are really so minor and I am sure you are aware of them and given only a stretch in PS would show them and since illustrating my point would be rather unecessary and patronising and detract from what is the presentation of a beautiful image....breath....I won't

Very lovely!

Mike
sorry, had to have a dig

Some people are just toooooo picky and pedantic Jase ... just ignore them.

It's a wonderful image Jase and good luck at CWAS. Maybe next year I'll have something worthy of that comp as well. Anyway, you've inspired me to have another crack at this gem, I know I can do better than my last effort (if the clouds ever lift).

Cheers, Marcus

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

Some people are just toooooo picky and pedantic Jase ... just ignore them.

It's a wonderful image Jase and good luck at CWAS. Maybe next year I'll have something worthy of that comp as well. Anyway, you've inspired me to have another crack at this gem, I know I can do better than my last effort (if the clouds ever lift).

Cheers, Marcus

Its all good Marcus. What goes around comes around. That's why I'm a member of this open minded community. If I step over the line and offend people, one can only apologise. I would have hoped to see an entry in there from you. Your M83 was great. Thanks for your comments.

[bluescope]

Glorious Jase !

[Alchemy (Clive)]

the galaxy is stunning, the background noise in the sky isnt.

What i do is raise the black point and grab a less processed verson and lift the background a smidge..... and i mean a smidge above the black point of the more processed image and blend with lighten, thus removing the noisy background but leaving the lighter processed elements, would this work with your image ?

you said you wanted honesty..... Its also possible this doesnt show up in a printed image

Cheers Clive

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by bluescope

Glorious Jase !

Thanks Steve. Pleased you liked it.

Originally Posted by Alchemy

the galaxy is stunning, the background noise in the sky isnt.

What i do is raise the black point and grab a less processed verson and lift the background a smidge..... and i mean a smidge above the black point of the more processed image and blend with lighten, thus removing the noisy background but leaving the lighter processed elements, would this work with your image ?

you said you wanted honesty..... Its also possible this doesnt show up in a printed image

Cheers Clive

Thanks Clive. I didn't think of performing this. Do you perform any masking in the process? Is the less processed version placed on top of the original layer before the blend?

[Robert_T]

Jase, hard to find words for that one

That is one spectacular image as good as any galaxy image I've seen made by professional observatories and published in glossy coffee table astro books

[Alchemy (Clive)]

Originally Posted by jase

Thanks Clive. I didn't think of performing this. Do you perform any masking in the process? Is the less processed version placed on top of the original layer before the blend?

i typically do it earlier in the process than the final image, i do it once the background just starts to look speckly, simply putting the less processed on top of the more processed, checking with the slider to make sure i dont lose any of the fainter details, and i may not blend at 100%, i often have to readjust the less processed black point to match the newwer one several times. As your images are so smooth it shouldnt be too much of a drama, you could mask similar to your contrast masking with a hide all and paint it in but i dont. The risks are if the background is too speckled the lighter speckles pull through and the edges of hard processed objects then dont look as though they match a too smooth background, and if you do it to hard too early, fainter details disapear, and when i have the final image i leave a certain amount of noise in the background or it wont look right.

cheers clive

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by Robert_T

Jase, hard to find words for that one

That is one spectacular image as good as any galaxy image I've seen made by professional observatories and published in glossy coffee table astro books

Thanks for the kind words Rob. Much appreciated.

---
Thanks for the detailed explanation Clive. Have made note of it. Still a little confused as I would have thought the brighter image was placed on top of the darker for the lighten mode blend to function. Anyway, I need to trial it out. Thanks again. It is this type of feedback and suggestion I need to push some more boundaries and experiment.

[Alchemy (Clive)]

Originally Posted by jase

Still a little confused as I would have thought the brighter image was placed on top of the darker for the lighten mode blend to function.

have a play i typically use it fairly early in the whole process as soon as i see the sky background showing some signs of noise, i may use it a couple of times, but stop if the main objects show too much difference in texture, ... fortunately the lighter objects take a while to go gritty.

if you are blending at a percentage the order may make a difference , it wont at 100%.... have to do more experimenting myself.

cheers clive.