A Pair of Roses

[Tom Davis (Tom)]

I have not been able to image the Rosette Nebula since 2005 due to the
perpetual Idaho, USA cloud ceiling. This year, however I was able to image it from South Australia. Also I was able to image it in both broadband and narrowband.


Broadband:
http://www.tvdavisastropics.com/astroimages-1_00003a.htm


Narrowband:
http://www.tvdavisastropics.com/astroimages-1_0000b2.htm


and a mouseover comparison:
http://www.tvdavisastropics.com/astroimages-1_0000b3.htm


Comments/criticisms welcome.


Remember, I am not a narrowband imager but I tried. Also, although the
luminance data in the LRGB version does tend to wash out some color,
if I reduce it you would not be able to see all the cool dust in the
lower left corner. That would be a shame


Tom

[RB (Andrew)]

Stunning images Tom.
Lovely rich colours throughout and the fine dust detail is superb.

Awesome work

[sadia]

wooolala ....I am speechless!!! Both are awesome but i have personal weakness for narrowband so I liked that more.

[TrevorW]

narrowband Hubble pallete my favourite of the two

probably because it's got 14hrs in it

How much time to you usually spend on processing Tom

[multiweb (Marc)]

Very cool. I like the rollover to compare. NB shows details in the core nebulosity better but the RGB is most suited to the subtle variations in color and luminosity in the surrounding dust. Top work.

[CoolhandJo (Paul)]

Both are magnificant.. The detail is great. So if your not a narrowband imager than why is the image so perfect?

[Paul Haese]

I really like the narrow band image but I think the outer core area of the RGB set looks a little over processed to me. The outer regions of the image look great, but this inner area just does not look right.

[Liz]

Wow!!!!! Stunning images Tom, well done

[RobF (Rob)]

Very very VERY nice!

I REALLY enjoyed the comparison of NB and LRGB. Its like having x-ray vision to get to know the object even better. Doesn't look like you're any slouch in the NB stakes to me Tom!

[seeker372011 (Narayan)]

usually I am not a big fan of narrow band images-but in this case the NB shows so much more detail I can understand why people choose this route

stunning images , both of them

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

A wonderful presentation Tom. Thank you for sharing it with us. Your work is inspirational.

[prokyon (Werner Probst)]

Wow, stunning, so many details!

[Bassnut (Fred)]

holy cow, thats insane, waaaay too much detail, stars are far too small, sheesh, thats bumped the bar up a tad , mind you, it is woozy wide field .

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Love the NB and comparison image, but the LRGB image seems a tad unnatural to me - nebular detail looks opaque in areas. That said, one could debate what really can be deemed natural or unatural in our images. All in the eye of the processing beholder I suppose and perhaps a debate for another time!!??
Detail/Structure in the NB image is absolutely amazing.
Doug

[telecasterguru (Frank)]

Tom,

Just superb. Fantastic work.

Frank

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Yeh....Niiiiiiiice!

I also prefer the narrow band version.

While still a great image, the broad band shot looks just a little over processed to me, like you were trying to squeek every bit of faint dust out and just went a biiiit too far...?

Wish I could reduce my AP to F5.6 for use with the PL16803 unfortunately the reducer that works with my scope doesn't flatten the field much though and would probably vignette the 16803 anyway

Mike

[danielsun]

Absolutley stunning images Tom , though I much prefer the narrow band.

Brilliant work.

Cheers Daniel.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Very nice pair of images Tom, I cannot get over the amount of dust you manage to extract and visualise in your images.
I am finding that a lot more dust uis evident with my FSQ than I have seen with any other scopes I have had or used.
Very nice.

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Originally Posted by Hagar

I am finding that a lot more dust is evident with my FSQ than I have seen with any other scopes I have had or used.
Very nice.

You lucky so & so!!!