The Box Nebula and other faint PN's in Sagittarius

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Actually something I forgot too. The little gem nebula is actually NGC 6818. I've seen NGC 6445 referred to as "The crawling monster planetary" but never the little gem. Of course don't let my extreme pedantry detract from what is definitely a nice image.

Cheers

Steve

[tilbrook@rbe.ne (Justin Tilbrook)]

Marvellous work Mike!

Remarkable detail on a 57 arc sec planetary.

Cheers,

Justin.

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Stevec35

Actually something I forgot too. The little gem nebula is actually NGC 6818. I've seen NGC 6445 referred to as "The crawling monster planetary" but never the little gem. Of course don't let my extreme pedantry detract from what is definitely a nice image.

Cheers

Steve

Good work Steve. Keep him on the straight and narrow. Spurious info not allowed here. Still, as I said above it's a great image.
BTW I've seen 6445 referred to as the "box nebula"

[astronobob (Bob)]

Mighty grouse resolution Mike, setting a benchmark in time of astro-imaging me thinks wonder what these PN's and others will look like in 10-20yrs, who knows,
Great show and interesting presentation Mike

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Well thank you one and all I appreciate the feedback and nice comments

Regarding the colloquial name of NGC 6445, it seems there is some confusion out there, not only is it referred to as The Little Gem in my Planetarium software Star AtlasPRO, I had also found several other references to NGC 6445 as being The Little Gem and here are two:

http://server7.wikisky.org/starview?...6445&locale=EN

and

http://rao.150m.com/NGC6445.html

However... digging a bit deeper

THIS may be the reason for the confusion (first paragraph), seems there was an error some time ago in the Sky Atlas 2000 Vol 2..?

The Little Gem seems in fact more likely to be NGC 6818 (also in Sagittarius). Seems NGC 6445 is more often referred to as The Box Nebula in most cases.

Have to admit though, it is a little gem of an object though

Anyway...great news!

I had conformation of the nature of the other two faint PN's I found in my image...one of which I was only 13yrs too late to claim the discovery

This from sky object guru Sakib Rasool:

"The one on the top is called PN G007.9+03.8 and was only discovered in 2002. It is one of nearly 1200 MASH planetary nebulae, see the Ha image here: http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/v...&G007.9%2B03.8

The second is also from the MASH survey, this is PN G007.7+03.9, see here: http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/v...&G007.7%2B03.9

Also I think the halo around NGC 6445 might have been discovered in 1986 or 1987."

Thanks again guys and nice to know at least some people read image posts more carefully than Marc ...will make the necessary name changes.

Mike

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

Just to confuse things further, Stellarium refers to NGC6445 as "Little Gem" and NGC6818 as "Little Gem Nebula". They iz confuzzled also.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

Just to confuse things further, Stellarium refers to NGC6445 as "Little Gem" and NGC6818 as "Little Gem Nebula". They iz confuzzled also.

I think the Sky Atlas 2000 mistake theory may be the culprit

Bit like the "where is the running chicken?" dilemma ...naaaaah, we all know where that is

Mike

[Rex]

Beautiful shot Mike, and regardless of the real"name", it really is a little gem. Great resolution, colour and image scale. Maybe one day when the clouds decide to part for more than 10 minutes I might actually get some imaging done??????

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Rex

Beautiful shot Mike, and regardless of the real"name", it really is a little gem. Great resolution, colour and image scale. Maybe one day when the clouds decide to part for more than 10 minutes I might actually get some imaging done??????

Cheers Rex, My re naming it The Box Nebula has even been questioned now...so I give up (bloody internet ) Meah, what's in a name?...heck, it looks like a Butterfly to me anyway

I send you good vibes for the clouds to part for a whole night, on a Friday with no commitments the next day, amen!

Mike

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Cheers Rex, My re naming it The Box Nebula has even been questioned now...so I give up (bloody internet ) Meah, what's in a name?...heck, it looks like a Butterfly.
Mike

Yeah, I've seen IC4406 called the Box Nebula.
BTW how did you spot the fainter of the two planetaries in that huge field?

[Placidus (Mike and Trish)]

Hi, Mike,

Very nicely done. Good detail in the main planetary. Even with your two close-ups to work from, finding the two tiny ones kept me pleasantly occupied while the casserole cooked. You must have sharp eyes.

Best,
MBJ

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

Yeah, I've seen IC4406 called the Box Nebula.
BTW how did you spot the fainter of the two planetaries in that huge field?

It was very obvious, remember it is my eyes seeing the sub frames, the pre-processing, the combining, the layering etc etc although having said that, I didn't notice it until I did the initial RGB combine in Astroart and bang, there it was, a little green donnut

Originally Posted by Placidus

Hi, Mike,

Very nicely done. Good detail in the main planetary. Even with your two close-ups to work from, finding the two tiny ones kept me pleasantly occupied while the casserole cooked. You must have sharp eyes.

Best,
MBJ

They are both in the wide field only but great to hear that other people like to scan and have a good look at images before passing comment too. Sometimes I can go from an initial "wha tha Fu??" to hmmm?...and finally, nah, I actually like that...yeah nice! So always good to have a good look I recon, I usually look pretty well around your images too, now THEY are worth surfing

Crazy thing this colour processing sometimes...especially when using NB data.

Mike

[nandopg]

Hi Mike,
The full field is an absolute fantastic image, with the PN and the globular cluster in the same FOV forming an outstanding composition.
Other nice thing is that this PN is not very well known what increases even more the impact of the image.
My only point is that the image looks to me a bit over saturated. However I also noted that nobady shares this point of view with me as most of the astronomical images I have seen, are always a bit over saturated for my taste. So, this should be just me.

Congratulations for the great result,

Fernando

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by nandopg

Hi Mike,
The full field is an absolute fantastic image, with the PN and the globular cluster in the same FOV forming an outstanding composition.
Other nice thing is that this PN is not very well known what increases even more the impact of the image.
My only point is that the image looks to me a bit over saturated. However I also noted that nobady shares this point of view with me as most of the astronomical images I have seen, are always a bit over saturated for my taste. So, this should be just me.

Congratulations for the great result,

Fernando

Thank you for this assessment Fernando I am very glad you liked it.

You are quite right about the degree of saturation, it is a pretty personal thing, especially with narrow band imaging and I get that some people are not fans of the saturation level that I often settle on...but I have been doing this imaging game for many, many, years now and I think it is important that I image for me first, too old to change now . Astroimaging has become so much like visual art in recent years, particularly with the popularity of narrowband filters. Most importantly it is my art and I do it for me and not to simply please others but if others like it then I am very happy about that, however if they don't that's fine too, it is like any other art, not every piece is liked by everyone but everyone should remain happy and comfortable in their own imaging skin

..err?..hope that didn't sound like a soliloquy just being honest

Mike

Mike

[nandopg]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Thank you for this assessment Fernando I am very glad you liked it.

You are quite right about the degree of saturation, it is a pretty personal thing, especially with narrow band imaging and I get that some people are not fans of the saturation level that I often settle on...but I have been doing this imaging game for many, many, years now and I think it is important that I image for me first, too old to change now . Astroimaging has become so much like visual art in recent years, particularly with the popularity of narrowband filters. Most importantly it is my art and I do it for me and not to simply please others but if others like it then I am very happy about that, however if they don't that's fine too, it is like any other art, not every piece is liked by everyone but everyone should remain happy and comfortable in their own imaging skin

..err?..hope that didn't sound like a soliloquy just being honest

Mike

Mike

Hi Mike,
Your reply don't sound like a soliloquy. It points out precisely what our hobby is, something primarily personal, if the audience also likes is a bonus.
I can say that with your words you have increased my respect and admiration for your work, once now I understand it.

Putting all of this together, plus more time admiring your image, I can say:
Congratulations for this mix of technology, technique and art.

Fernando

[Harel_Boren]

... And color is absolutely fabulous!

Cheers,
Harel

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by nandopg

Hi Mike,
Your reply don't sound like a soliloquy. It points out precisely what our hobby is, something primarily personal, if the audience also likes is a bonus.
I can say that with your words you have increased my respect and admiration for your work, once now I understand it.

Putting all of this together, plus more time admiring your image, I can say:
Congratulations for this mix of technology, technique and art.

Fernando

Good on you Fernando and cheers

Originally Posted by Harel_Boren

... And color is absolutely fabulous!

Cheers,
Harel

Thanks a lot Harel, fun game we participate in huh?

Mike

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Marvellous image Mike - composition is great and the impact of the combination of two quite different objects is impressive. Surely it is quite special to have 3 PNs in a field - these are such rare things?

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

Marvellous image Mike - composition is great and the impact of the combination of two quite different objects is impressive. Surely it is quite special to have 3 PNs in a field - these are such rare things?

Thanks a lot Ray, I agree, I think the fact that there are three planetary nebulae in the field and the unique pairing of objects is perhaps juuust a tad more interesting than the slight blue colour cast and why I decided to shoot'em in the first place

Mike

[jase (Jason)]

Onya Mikey! 'bout time you ventured off the beaten path. Lovely object pairing with an aesthetic appeal. No idea about the neb names, most DSOs have so many designations already, never hurts to add a few more to confuse the hell out of everyone.