Steven
It looks like a real faint one! Nicely imaged - I think the pink areas to either side are caused by jets in the PN (or at least thats what I read).
Couldn't find much on the web about this PN. Blackskies had a reference and Hartung lists it as real faint and needing a 30cm to even get a glimpse
fantastic shot Steve - wow you have captured some faint galaxies in the background as well. That is definitely a trophy image, one for the bar room. I wonder if Scott Alder has seen this - he is a complete planetary nut.
as an aside - do you have some details and more pictures of your observatory you could post onsite or email me?
fantastic shot Steve - wow you have captured some faint galaxies in the background as well. That is definitely a trophy image, one for the bar room. I wonder if Scott Alder has seen this - he is a complete planetary nut.
as an aside - do you have some details and more pictures of your observatory you could post onsite or email me?
Thanks H0ughy.
I have been impressed with Scott's planetary images, particularly Abell 12.
The Observatory is a very simple cheap and nasty design. It is on a 2.1 X 2.1 metre concrete slab base. The north side (door side) is 1.7 metres tall and the south side is 1.4 metres. It is high enough to screen the telescope from wind buffering yet provide good access to the sky. The roof is two separate components which are hinged and opened via a flip top design. The corrugated roof is coated with an aluminium reflective paint to minimize heat build up inside. I needed to make sure I wasn't violating any aviation codes as my observatory is under a flight path!
It looks more like a cubby house than an observatory.
Another fine image Steve, natural looking, delicate and no sign of image processing. Your processing techniques have improved recently, if I may say, in the past your images often had a processed unatural look to them, what are you doing differently now?
Another fine image Steve, natural looking, delicate and no sign of image processing. Your processing techniques have improved recently, if I may say, in the past your images often had a processed unatural look to them, what are you doing differently now?
Mike
Thanks Mike.
The major difference these days is that I finally have the optics and CCD sorted out. If the raw data is bad, and you are trying to process out the defects, the end result is never satisfactory.
Recently I decided to image all my RGBs unbinned. That has made a definite difference with regards to preserving star colour. I have also given up on using deconvolution.
Your OBs looks more than adequite. Thru hard experience the KISS principle works well .
There is one pitfall Fred. A strong westerly can flip the roof back into a closed position. I found out the hard way as I was brained while setting up an imaging session. Fortunately my head saved the optics.
There is one pitfall Fred. A strong westerly can flip the roof back into a closed position. I found out the hard way as I was brained while setting up an imaging session. Fortunately my head saved the optics.
I have long admired your fine work, especially in unearthing obscure Southern objects that most others have never heard of-found your web site through Ted Dobosz's site years ago
I regularly visit your site to find imaging targets..though my results maybe far from yours in quality
.
. Murphys law wins every time.
