Go Back   IceInSpace > Images > Deep Space
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 03-01-2009, 01:55 PM
Hagar (Doug)
Registered User

Hagar is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,646
M45 What do you think?

M45 taken from my home in Mt Beauty. Combination of 10 X 5 minute exposures calibrated with Darks, Flats, and Bias files. Images stacked using Images Plus with final adjustments using Photoshop CS3.

Telescope: Takahashi FS 102 with Tak focal reducer.
Camera: QHY8 Cooled CCD
Guiding: ED80 and QHY5 (QGuider)

Hope you like it.
I have included 2 final images bot processed using slightly different methods. Which is better and why?
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (M45.jpg)
186.6 KB38 views
Click for full-size image (M45ddp.jpg)
187.8 KB43 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-01-2009, 02:35 PM
rally
Registered User

rally is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 896
Its a difficult subject, both look good.

I like the enhanced nebulousity image because it has pulled out the detail but its come at the expense of the fainter stars in the wider star field (they appear to have gone completely)
Although funnily enough the main Sisters in the enhanced nebulousity image are actually smaller - not sure why that is.

What PP did you do ?

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-01-2009, 02:53 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
I like both, too....however, the 2nd piccie has somewhat more detail, especially in the neb' and smaller stars. I also noticed that you've managed to get rid of the amp glow along the edges of the piccie in the 2nd try. That made the background a tad darker, but it did get rid of some of the extremely faint background stars.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-01-2009, 05:07 PM
Craig_L
Craig

Craig_L is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 558
Came out well. Certainly like the detail of the second one best. Nice to see it in this landscape wide field.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-01-2009, 06:05 PM
richardo's Avatar
richardo (Rich)
Love reflection Nebs !

richardo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Streaky Bay
Posts: 1,070
Hi Doug,
I'm with the right had version as well.
More nebulosity and also starting to show some dust colouration to it.
I reckon you could even stretch it a bit more and bring up the dark point.
Just a tad though, I feel you might be able to eek out some more faint stuff.

All the best for now
Rich
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2009, 06:42 PM
TrevorW
Registered User

TrevorW is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 8,278
Not bad Doug definitely on the right track check this out as an indication

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.c..._2035_19658583

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2009, 06:48 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Widefield wuss

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caboolture, Australia
Posts: 6,994
I like number 2 Doug,...

Seems to have a higher black point/flatter field, its not reaching the same magnitude stars as number 1, although its showing more nebulosity, and seems to have better contrast.

Personal preference? Which do YOU prefer? thats the important question you need to ask.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:15 PM
MrB's Avatar
MrB (Simon)
Old Man Yells at Cloud

MrB is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rockingham WA
Posts: 3,435
First image for me.
The extra detail in the second is good but it looks kinda 'pushed' if ya know what I mean? Like there's more 'noise' in the clouds than the first one?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:44 PM
KenGee's Avatar
KenGee (Kenith Gee)
Registered User

KenGee is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Laura
Posts: 599
Number 1 for me as well Doug, Try taking longer intergrations, reflection nebs I have found need it. Do some tests I've found 2 X 15 is better then 6 X 5.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:44 PM
Alchemy (Clive)
Quietly watching

Alchemy is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Yarra Junction
Posts: 3,044
the slightly darker one, its cleaner. the second is ok its a personal preference i guess.... but you did ask , so there you have it

cheers
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:54 PM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22,079
I like the second one Doug. When I think M45 I want to see those nebulosity, especialy the one that turns into a dirty yellowish color at the top.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-01-2009, 08:41 PM
Hagar (Doug)
Registered User

Hagar is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,646
Mixed bag of results. The real dif is in the initial processing. No 1 is processed the way I normally do it, using Photoshop for all stretching and manipulation.

The second image was stacked in IP3 then Digital developed in IP before being moved into CS3. I sort of feel like I am flying blind with Digital Dev so I don't use it, prefering CS3 for all.The reduction of dim stars may well be just a mouse click in the final stages.

Personally I like No 1 to me it doesn't exhibit as much nebulosity but it does appear somewhat smoother and more realistic.

Who Knows.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-01-2009, 10:20 PM
atalas's Avatar
atalas
Registered User

atalas is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,151
They both look good doug...I would drop down to 3 minute subs and lots of them on these stars with your setup mate,then stretch them till they scream your my Daddy ! well done.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-01-2009, 11:50 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Jeff
Starry Eyed

Jeff is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wonga Park
Posts: 692
Awesome!

Focal reducer does a nice job to help fit everything in. It's obviously well matched to the FS102.

Did you ever find a focal reducer which was well matched to your little ED80?

Cheers,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:04 AM
Hagar (Doug)
Registered User

Hagar is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
Awesome!

Focal reducer does a nice job to help fit everything in. It's obviously well matched to the FS102.

Did you ever find a focal reducer which was well matched to your little ED80?

Cheers,
Jeff
I did. A William optics Pflat2 0.8X It was by far the best Focal reducer for the ED80 and the APS chip in a DSLR.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:17 AM
Jen's Avatar
Jen
Moving to Pandora

Jen is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Swan Hill
Posts: 7,102
nice pic Doug you have been busy havnt you
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement