Ngc6744

[peter_4059 (Peter)]

Thanks Al. Smaller stars definitely looks better to me and the saturation boost in the galaxy looks good. Some of the yellow stars look a bit overdone to me though.

Rick - thanks for the advice.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by peter_4059

Thanks Al.
Smaller stars definitely looks better to me and the saturation boost in the galaxy looks good. Some of the yellow stars look a bit overdone to me though.

Rick - thanks for the advice.

Thanks Peter,
the over yellow stars could be fixed in a jiffy.
I don't have PixInsight nor would I know how to use it.
I think Fitswork4 & Photoshop CS5 is sufficient to get very nice results.
I only had a less than 200K file to work with -
imagine what could be done with the original raw files?
Some of the real experts like Mike could do wonders with your data.

cheers
Allan

[troypiggo (Troy)]

First of all, you still have unprocessed data from AF?!

I would have thought you'd be best using the same stretching method for both L and RGB? If using a masked stretch (MS) for one, use for both. If using curves (HT) for one, use for both. Just that I've ended up with funky results (not in a good way) if the L and RGB are stretched (at least that initial big stretch) differently, esp in stars.

Re the donuts in the core of bright stars from MS, most recent images of mine have been HDR just for the star cores to alleviate that. Just at end of session take some shorter subs of LRGB. Don't need as many as the main/long subs, because you're only using them for the brighter stars, less worried about S/N (maybe 5 subs, whatever min to get BPP to stack). Not that helpful for your data from AF, but maybe for next time you're out?

[RobF (Rob)]

Nice going Peter. I've always this a tough sucker to process.
Good to see someone else sitting on unprocessed data - just as well the way Brissie weather has been lately!

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Nicely done Peter. It's a faint surface brightness galaxy and I think you've captured that aspect very well.
Geoff