Antenna Galaxies added data

gregbradley · #1 23-04-2020, 04:33 PM

I have added extra LRGB data to this image. Its now around 16 hours or so.
Tricky to process but I am happy with the result.

After seeing M & T's superb image it reminded me I have never taken a decent image of this one. It is quite a dim object and fairly small.

I have done 2 nights on this. The first night's data was only partly used as it wasn't in focus enough. Also I think flats may help this data. There seems to be very little vignetting so I haven't bothered so far but processing this seem to leave a slight large red hot spot which took a bit to remove.

But last nights was accurate. I probably will do another night on this one as its still a bit noisy. Its 8 hours and 20 minutes so far. I have some Ha I may add as well if its good enough.

ASI183mm Pro and AP RHA 305 F3.8.

https://pbase.com/gregbradley/image/170645463/large

Greg.

Placidus (Mike and Trish) · #2 24-04-2020, 09:21 PM

Good one. You've brought out the faint detail in the clubbed end of the top right antenna. We found it very difficult finding a balance between showing that faint structure, showing the detail in the core, and maintaining some sort of balance overall. You've succeeded nicely.

gregbradley · #3 24-04-2020, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placidus

Good one. You've brought out the faint detail in the clubbed end of the top right antenna. We found it very difficult finding a balance between showing that faint structure, showing the detail in the core, and maintaining some sort of balance overall. You've succeeded nicely.

Thanks for that. There are some clear nights forecast over the next week and I intend to get more data for it. Its quite a dim galaxy really.

Greg.

Atmos (Colin) · #4 25-04-2020, 09:46 AM

You've done a good job there Greg. It's difficult to get a smooth result on the faint tidal tails so with only 8 hours of exposure on this pair

gregbradley · #5 25-04-2020, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atmos

You've done a good job there Greg. It's difficult to get a smooth result on the faint tidal tails so with only 8 hours of exposure on this pair

Thanks Colin. I took some flats last night. I plan on getting some extra hours on it tonight as its looking to be clear. Another night's exposure if I get it should improve it again. Not sure if the flats will lift it or not yet. They might.

Greg.

PeterSEllis (Peter) · #6 25-04-2020, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

After seeing M & T's superb image it reminded me I have never taken a decent image of this one. It is quite a dim object and fairly small.

I have done 2 nights on this. The first night's data was only partly used as it wasn't in focus enough. Also I think flats may help this data. There seems to be very little vignetting so I haven't bothered so far but processing this seem to leave a slight large red hot spot which took a bit to remove.

But last nights was accurate. I probably will do another night on this one as its still a bit noisy. Its 8 hours and 20 minutes so far. I have some Ha I may add as well if its good enough.

ASI183mm Pro and AP RHA 305 F3.8.

https://pbase.com/gregbradley/image/170645463/large

Greg.

Nice shot, it is a difficult object to process, especially getting those arms to come out, without saturating the core.

Cheers
Peter

gregbradley · #7 25-04-2020, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterSEllis

Nice shot, it is a difficult object to process, especially getting those arms to come out, without saturating the core.

Cheers
Peter

Thanks Peter.

I plan on getting some extra time on this one tonight if I can.

Greg.

Ryderscope (Rodney) · #8 27-04-2020, 07:52 AM

That is good work Greg particularly for a relatively small amount of data.

gregbradley · #9 27-04-2020, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryderscope

That is good work Greg particularly for a relatively small amount of data.

Thanks Rodney. I took more exposure over the weekend but had little success in adding it in. Gee astrophotography is often hard!
I'll try to add it again.

Greg.

gregbradley · #10 27-04-2020, 10:05 AM

I added extra data to this and its now around 16 hours or so of data.

Tricky to process but I am happy with the result.

https://pbase.com/gregbradley/image/170645463/large regular view

https://pbase.com/gregbradley/image/170645463/original large view

Greg.

Peter Ward · #11 27-04-2020, 10:25 AM

The latest iteration looks good. It would be a fine composite target if you added some CDK17 data

gregbradley · #12 27-04-2020, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

The latest iteration looks good. It would be a fine composite target if you added some CDK17 data

Thanks Peter. It actually has some CDK data in it already.

Greg.

Ryderscope (Rodney) · #13 27-04-2020, 04:59 PM

A definite improvement with the extra data Greg. Looking good and much clearer around the galaxy core.

Placidus (Mike and Trish) · #14 27-04-2020, 05:20 PM

Looking seriously good. One can now follow the right hand antenna past where it starts to curve back again. Excellent.

gregbradley · #15 27-04-2020, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryderscope

A definite improvement with the extra data Greg. Looking good and much clearer around the galaxy core.

Thanks Rodney. It took a long time to process. Sometimes astro images just won't behave!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placidus

Looking seriously good. One can now follow the right hand antenna past where it starts to curve back again. Excellent.

Thanks M & T it was you fabulous image that was inspiration to image it.

This little ASI183mm Pro camera has 84% QE in green and still I believe around 70% in Ha like the Sony ICX694 sensor (it has 70% QE in Ha).

I find its also the most sensitive camera I have used for S11.

Greg.

multiweb (Marc) · #16 27-04-2020, 09:25 PM

Looks great Greg.

That's something I'd like to try now I have the narrow field for it. I wonder if you still need a dark sky when doing small galaxy fields. For sure gradients wouldn't be an issue anymore?

gregbradley · #17 27-04-2020, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by multiweb

Looks great Greg.

That's something I'd like to try now I have the narrow field for it. I wonder if you still need a dark sky when doing small galaxy fields. For sure gradients wouldn't be an issue anymore?

Thanks Marc. Yes I think small sensors do seem to handle light pollution better than larger sensors.

Greg.

multiweb (Marc) · #18 28-04-2020, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Thanks Marc. Yes I think small sensors do seem to handle light pollution better than larger sensors.

Greg.

I had given up doing color from home 5 or 6 years ago but I might give it a go with the CN-212. My fov is 40'x30'.

topheart · #19 28-04-2020, 12:25 PM

Nice antennae Greg!
Cheers,
Tim

gregbradley · #20 28-04-2020, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by multiweb

I had given up doing color from home 5 or 6 years ago but I might give it a go with the CN-212. My fov is 40'x30'.

Hard to say without trying and some good gradient removal techniques. The best one I have found is the photoshop Apply Image technique.

Greg.