This is my longest integration time in a desperate attempt to defeat light pollution. Even so, the 100% image is a bit too grainy. Big thanks to Mark Adams and Ray Johnson for most helpful processing advice. Ray's great and recent image of NGC1532 sets the bar very high!
What I find most interesting is that all of the images that I could view taken with a Trius camera show rather dramatic blue. Searches of other images of NGC1532 usually show no blue, or just the smallest hint. Given the dramatic sensitivity of the Trius in blue and UV perhaps this isn't surprising. The Baader filters I used cut at 380nm so some of the blue is coming from UV. Personally I think this is fine given that one normally uses a red filter that allows near IR. So, something exta added to both ends of the visible spectra (though not necessarily in this image).
Luminance = TEC180 with TAK TOA-67 flattener. ONAG-XT, SX Ultra Star Guider, Moravian G2-8300
Hi Peter,
nice work.
I couldn't resist having a play with your picture -
I hope you don't mind?
I made some adjustments especially of the colors.
Do you think this looks better?
Hi Peter,
nice work.
I couldn't resist having a play with your picture -
I hope you don't mind?
I made some adjustments especially of the colors.
Do you think this looks better?
cheers
Allan
Hello Allan,
Well, of course I don't mind. I'm not sure how I feel about the two versions. They are just very different. Perhaps the "truth" is somewhere between the two? Mine is perhaps too blue and yours appears more purple but admittedly has more fiery drama in the core. All I can say for mine is that I colour balanced on the galaxy itself and I refrained from adjusting the colour to just make the picture pretty. But, honestly, I have no idea if any of the RGB images we do represent anything to do with "reality" even though we like to think they do. I mean we are squeezing near IR into red and now UV into blue. This certainly isn't what our eyes could ever see. At the end of the day what does it mean to colour balance anyway?
I would appreciate other comments about these two quite different versions. Allan's perhaps looks more like the more traditional versions of this galaxy.
Perhaps this will turn into an interesting discussion. .
I like the sharp detail Peter and I'm one of those people who likes to see blue in a galaxy. It may be better with the blue slightly toned down. I'll have a go when I'm next at my computer.
Geoff
I am not a fan of others reprocessing your image for you. Its a bit like someone redoing your painting for you. You are the artist, you make the decisions good or bad. Technical points like too much noise, needs more exposure, stars aren't round are fine. But subjective points like colour and framing and methods of processing are a bit crossing the line in my opinion.
There are so many ways to processing an image that its not really granting the artist and their work any respect by redoing it for them. If you don't like the result that is the area where the audience can say - no, don't like it.
If the artist is a newbie and is after advice and help that's a different story. But that is not the case here.
Well, of course I don't mind. I'm not sure how I feel about the two versions. They are just very different. Perhaps the "truth" is somewhere between the two? Mine is perhaps too blue and yours appears more purple but admittedly has more fiery drama in the core. All I can say for mine is that I colour balanced on the galaxy itself and I refrained from adjusting the colour to just make the picture pretty. But, honestly, I have no idea if any of the RGB images we do represent anything to do with "reality" even though we like to think they do. I mean we are squeezing near IR into red and now UV into blue. This certainly isn't what our eyes could ever see. At the end of the day what does it mean to colour balance anyway?
I would appreciate other comments about these two quite different versions. Allan's perhaps looks more like the more traditional versions of this galaxy.
Perhaps this will turn into an interesting discussion. .
Peter
Thanks Peter,
my attempt was just a suggestion.
I agree with your comments.
I usually find that I end up doing a re-process of every picture I do.
It appears than no one else agrees with me so I am happy to delete my post if you want?
Not a bad effort there Pete, some nice details visible. Not exactly sure about the colour because as you say what is the right colour? If I go with aesthetics alone I recon combining your result with ReproAl's might give the best of both worlds
The sharpness of your stars and galactic detail is quite superb. It speaks for a combination of excellent seeing (over the Pacific Ocean?), together with perfect technique. You've gone quite deep, too.
Regarding colour, I like an image to show the physics of what is going on. Strongly interacting galaxies will have powerful bursts of star formation, and consequently will have regions that are very blue compared with an elliptical galaxy. Also in general the core of a spiral galaxy should be much cooler and therefore less blue than the star-forming regions. Your image shows all those "internal" features.
But what about absolute colour? Should one aim to show the ellipticals and distant, bland, background spirals as a warmer colour to match their known physics, or is it fine to say that they are unimportant and worrying about them is missing the point of the image? I could be persuaded either way.
So a lovely, deep, startlingly sharp image that says a lot about the interacting pair. Really well done.
The sharpness of your stars and galactic detail is quite superb. It speaks for a combination of excellent seeing (over the Pacific Ocean?), together with perfect technique. You've gone quite deep, too.
Regarding colour, I like an image to show the physics of what is going on. Strongly interacting galaxies will have powerful bursts of star formation, and consequently will have regions that are very blue compared with an elliptical galaxy. Also in general the core of a spiral galaxy should be much cooler and therefore less blue than the star-forming regions. Your image shows all those "internal" features.
But what about absolute colour? Should one aim to show the ellipticals and distant, bland, background spirals as a warmer colour to match their known physics, or is it fine to say that they are unimportant and worrying about them is missing the point of the image? I could be persuaded either way.
So a lovely, deep, startlingly sharp image that says a lot about the interacting pair. Really well done.
Best,
Mike
...yeah, that's what I was essentially saying , Mike has just said it properly with explanations to back it up
Not a bad effort there Pete, some nice details visible. Not exactly sure about the colour because as you say what is the right colour? If I go with aesthetics alone I recon combining your result with ReproAl's might give the best of both worlds
Mike
I agree - I think over did my repro - & lost too much of that lovely blue.
Here's 50/50 blend with the original.
lot of blues. 
If I go with aesthetics alone I recon combining your result with ReproAl's might give the best of both worlds 
, Mike has just said it properly with explanations to back it up 
