Traditional NGC 5128 ala naturale

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

I have processed this data into so many variations I know but having not imaged for a while and getting bored, tonight I just thought..I'm gunna try and compose an image of Centaurus A in a way that looks very natural .

I wasn't after revealing the faint outer halo of the galaxy or the faint galactic cirrus this time, although I did want to include plenty of the detail in the dust lane while maintaining some of the characteristic background glow from the galaxy core. No pushing and no magic, just ala naturale .

I only used the modest amount of RGB data I collected at Wiruna, so it is not the whole three nights worth used to make the previous Ultra Deep version.

Wanting to avoid the inconsitent plastic or smokey blurred look selective artificial smoothing can impart, I worked on producing a smooth background that looked like natural dark nightime sky across the image but that still showed the mirriad of galaxies strewn all over the place. I didn't push or stretch anything and tried to maintainin star colours (just using RGB helps here). I just kept the processing to the very basics with only minimal selective unsharp mask in PS around the dust lane. Luckily after careful image calibration during preprocessing coupled with the adequate exposure (RGB = 90 90 90min) under dark skies, no noise reduction was necessary and I didn't feel the need to use any gradient removal either.

I think (?) it met my imagined outcome..?

For those on boadband the best view is had at the full size 100% res version here (11meg):

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...37076/original

Those without broadband or who want to take just a peek here is a much smaller (33%) version:

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...39288/original

Just for comparison, if you are interested, here is the Ultra Deep (20hrs) version again...

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...61387/original

Mike

[Alchemy (Clive)]

now thats really nice mike, a beautiful example, not going to pick at it at all

[AlexN]

I like it, although the marathon 20hr image is some what better... well. maybe not better. but Slicker!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by AlexN

I like it, although the marathon 20hr image is some what better... well. maybe not better. but Slicker!

Yeh I know but I was truly just sitting around twiddling my imaging thumbs and thought "there must be another Cen A image I can compile?" I've got enough data on Cen A to last a lifetime, I may never image it again?...Naaaaah

Mike

[leon]

Nice one Mike, I really love this object, but my poor little Tak just can't Get any size to it, if you know what i mean, Its' only a wide fielder.

Leon

[winensky]

Lovely. Especially the hint of a glow in the core.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Alchemy

now thats really nice mike, a beautiful example, not going to pick at it at all

Well thanks Clive, I was happy with the outcome too

Originally Posted by leon

Nice one Mike, I really love this object, but my poor little Tak just can't Get any size to it, if you know what i mean, Its' only a wide fielder.

Leon

Oh well, I keep getting boggus emails about "enlargers"...hmmm?..maybe they would work on your scope..? good excuse to finally get one and see

Mike

Originally Posted by winensky

Lovely. Especially the hint of a glow in the core.

Thanks Matt, Yes Cen A is characterised by the glow from the core behind the dust lane and although it is generally necessary to supress it somewhat, in order to reveal the edge detail of the dust Lane, it is important to retain some of it or you risk losing the spherical ball effect and flattening the galaxy or worse, giving it a hollowed out appearence.

Mike

[Babalyon 5]

I like it very much. To me its way better than the deep image, which looks to be overexposed and detracts from the object you are trying to capture. But I'm just an amateur, after all!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Babalyon 5

I like it very much. To me its way better than the deep image, which looks to be overexposed and detracts from the object you are trying to capture. But I'm just an amateur, after all!

I understand your preference mate. Others have said the same thing but then many others have said they prefer the Ultra Deep version This was why I did so many variations really, I just couldn't capture all aspects of the extensive data set in one image.

I think the Ultra Deep version is a bit like Parmesean cheese..? If you like it...you "LOVE" it . Luckily I suspected David Malin loved parmesian cheese (psst!...it was specifically for him that I composed the Ultra Deep version for actually ).

Mike

[Jeffkop (Jeff)]

Geeze Mike ... every image a dead set poolroom classic !!!!

[Ric]

Wonderful image Mike, the colour and detail look great.

[gregbradley]

Fabulous in all respects Mike.

Greg.

[spearo (Frank)]

beautiful
i prefer the first, I find the deep exposure one doesnt do justice to dust lane the way your other one does.

great images as always
frank

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Jeffkop

Geeze Mike ... every image a dead set poolroom classic !!!!

Thanks for your complimatary cometary...globule? Jeff

Originally Posted by Ric

Wonderful image Mike, the colour and detail look great.

Thanks Ric, I think doing things simply is the way to go if you have enough data from a dark sky. Of course this version used only 20% of the total data I gathered.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Fabulous in all respects Mike.

Greg.

Cheers Greg

Originally Posted by spearo

beautiful
i prefer the first, I find the deep exposure one doesnt do justice to dust lane the way your other one does.

great images as always
frank

Thanks Frank.

Yes as I said above a number of people have comented that they prefer the more natural look where as others have prefered the Ultra Deep version, I think becaue it is something new and those from the old film school (like me) associate deep images with some degree of overexposure. Had I tried to evenly display the massive dynamic range in this data as well as showcase all the details in the dust lane it would have looked fake to me, like it was a painting. In reality (at least mine ) it is absurd to be able to see ultra faint 27mag/sq arc sec dust in the same image as the detail within the bright galaxy core millions of times brighter and again this is likely a view I have formed via infulence from my film astrophotography days? There are a number of CCD imagers now using layer masks and the paint brush tool to effectively "paint-in" the faint areas of an image and I am not too keen on this look and can't decide whether it is the real image or a "created" or "imagined" one..? Each to their own and never the less these images are indeed spectacular...just not realistic to me

Thanks heaps for your coments though and I don't disagree with you

Mike