Just a quicky - testing out my ToupTek 3.5/4nm SHO filter set.
Thus far I'm really happy with how they are performing, though I'm yet to shoot a target with a very bright star in OIII to see how that goes! I might do a few subs on the horsehead just to see how that fares before its too late in the year!
Think im going to call it on this project... I know I could potentially make it better with more integration - but I'm happy with where it is.
I honestly couldn't be happier for a 'cheap' scope...
I think all in all I paid $2600 or so direct from Askar for a 4.5" F/7 APO and flattener, and to be so honest, I think its considerably better than the WO FLT110 that I had in 2011 that cost me twice as much THEN... Obviously, I can't objectively back that up, because I can't test them side by side, but despite that scope being brilliant with its TMB designed optics and incredible build quality, I just don't see any distinguishing differences here in build quality what so ever, and the Askar 120 is providing me better images with lower average FWHM's...
Alex,
Great result from so little data , has an airbrush art type of finish to it.
Seeing must have been ok too.
I kinda agree with Allan , a tad dark for my taste , that’s why so many stars are hidden in the background , this region is a veritable Star making factory.
OMI ….,
Well done !!
Thanks mate, I took the first night of subs, processed the Ha alone and was really happy with the level of detail, I thought I'd have a go at adding some more data... A couple of days later I jumped on IIS to have a bit of a gander and some other images and noticed Martin's image that has an almost identical field of view! so much for originality hahaha!
David :
Thanks, I'm really happy with how this has turned out for a real 'quicky'. I'm really happy with the scope and camera as a combo, for my local seeing it would seem that 0.9"/px is providing wonderfully sharp results, and my processing workflow for narrowband seems to have 'settled' a little bit with a pallete that seems to work well...
Martin / Allan :
I made it intentionally dark considering that I had so little data, and the SII and OIII were decidedly weaker than the Ha.
I guess, similarly, having the stars so reduced is an 'artistic decision' I tend to make, as I purposely remove them, and stretch them separately to the nebulosity, trying to ensure they really don't overwhelm the nebula, considering the SII and OIII data were so short, I had to reduce the brightness of the nebula considerably, and so the stars could have been quite overbearing...
I will never produce/upload a completely starless image, as I think that images lose so much context and depth as a result of star removal, however, the stars are not my subject, so they will always be there, but always be reduced fairly heavily... I'm not necessarily trying to produce a 'true to life' image, or scientifically accurate image, so I'd rather have the stars heavily reduced as that's how I prefer to see them...
I do wish there was more data so I could push the brightness and saturation a little harder, alas, with next to no clear skies this past couple of months, I had to make do with what I could get...
Thanks mate, I took the first night of subs, processed the Ha alone and was really happy with the level of detail, I thought I'd have a go at adding some more data... A couple of days later I jumped on IIS to have a bit of a gander and some other images and noticed Martin's image that has an almost identical field of view! so much for originality hahaha!
David :
Thanks, I'm really happy with how this has turned out for a real 'quicky'. I'm really happy with the scope and camera as a combo, for my local seeing it would seem that 0.9"/px is providing wonderfully sharp results, and my processing workflow for narrowband seems to have 'settled' a little bit with a pallete that seems to work well...
Martin / Allan :
I made it intentionally dark considering that I had so little data, and the SII and OIII were decidedly weaker than the Ha.
I guess, similarly, having the stars so reduced is an 'artistic decision' I tend to make, as I purposely remove them, and stretch them separately to the nebulosity, trying to ensure they really don't overwhelm the nebula, considering the SII and OIII data were so short, I had to reduce the brightness of the nebula considerably, and so the stars could have been quite overbearing...
I will never produce/upload a completely starless image, as I think that images lose so much context and depth as a result of star removal, however, the stars are not my subject, so they will always be there, but always be reduced fairly heavily... I'm not necessarily trying to produce a 'true to life' image, or scientifically accurate image, so I'd rather have the stars heavily reduced as that's how I prefer to see them...
I do wish there was more data so I could push the brightness and saturation a little harder, alas, with next to no clear skies this past couple of months, I had to make do with what I could get...
Alex,
Thanks for the detailed explanation
Fair point you make and can understand the reasoning behind darkening the interstellar background which included stars. Although a tad brighter might have exposed more detail. One has to be contented with the end result always.
As I’m a Startools user it stays true to your data as it’s documentary Astro software and therefore remains as scientifically accurate as possible. Hence most of my images have pronounced Star fields. It works completely different to PI and other similar programs. I guess I’m the odd one out !!
Clear Skies
Martin
