Vanilla trifid

[RobF (Rob)]

Just wonderful to swim around in. Never get tired of a nice triffid, and that's a cracker.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by RobF

Just wonderful to swim around in. Never get tired of a nice triffid, and that's a cracker.

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

Yep, 'uuuge improvement! Beautiful!

Thanks guys...it still needs a tidy up as the combine was with Photoshop, rather than say, Pixinsight.

Originally Posted by Atmos

My bad, was supposed to say "new moon"

Looking a wee bit sharper now

Originally Posted by Andy01

Now you're talking!
This new version is lovely, super sharp, well balanced and exactly the quality we have come to expect and enjoy from you

Rippabonzabeauty mate!

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Remarkably sharp and detailed. I like the "snails" eye stalks, so detailed.

The reds/pinks worked really well.

Greg.

Again thanks guys...I guess the 'scope is a keeper....It's also worth mentioning I used the AO-x for guiding...5Hz was as much as the guide star allowed, but I'm convinced it helps with pulling things in that little bit tighter.

Originally Posted by alpal

Hi Peter,
that's a great shot -
almost unbelievable from a suburban location.
I'd love to image this wonderful target.
The blues have a slightly strange hue.
I think the blues need a bit of adjustment
by boosting cyan for neutral & blue in Photoshop -
"selective colour. "

cheers
Allan

Meh..the blue looks OK to me...

Urban imaging...while a PITA...is nothing more than, taming the noise, taking some time for well calibrated flat fields, exposing a heck of a lot longer than you'd need at a dark site and having a good gradient removal tool.

PixInsight's background modeling is well worth getting a handle on.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Meh..the blue looks OK to me...

Urban imaging...while a PITA...is nothing more than, taming the noise, taking some time for well calibrated flat fields, exposing a heck of a lot longer than you'd need at a dark site and having a good gradient removal tool.

PixInsight's background modeling is well worth getting a handle on.

Hi Peter,
no one else has mentioned it but it looks like a purple sort of blue.
Maybe I'm color blind?
It doesn't really matter - it's a superb picture.

cheers
Allan

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by alpal

Hi Peter,
no one else has mentioned it but it looks like a purple sort of blue.
Maybe I'm color blind?
It doesn't really matter - it's a superb picture.

cheers
Allan

..it is possible there was some spill from the h-alpha layer....slight tweak now applied.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

..it is possible there was some spill from the h-alpha layer....slight tweak now applied.

Ahh yes - now the blue is blue.
perfect .

cheers
Allan

[Raydar (Ray Palmer)]

Stunning shot Peter. A great deep field view as well.

Ray

[Martin Pugh]

Hi Peter

lovely colour and definition.....but is there something funky going on at about the 10 o'clock position from the Trifid? Stars look a bit askew.

Nonetheless, a fine image, moreso given your suburban location.

Think I mentioned it before though.....dark site, remote imaging coming soon!

cheers
Martin

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

Hi Peter

lovely colour and definition.....but is there something funky going on at about the 10 o'clock position from the Trifid? Stars look a bit askew.

Nonetheless, a fine image, moreso given your suburban location.

Think I mentioned it before though.....dark site, remote imaging coming soon!

cheers
Martin

Ah, yes, that's what I get for being slack and aligning (eyeballing really) differing data sets using PS layers rather than Maxim or Pixinsight. Will fix in due course. (there is only so much you can do with the free transform tool

As for the dark site....hummm...sooo tempting.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

I don't mean to hijack this thread but I am seeking some guidance here. I am asking it here because there are some knowledgeable imagers who have contributed to this thread that can probably give me an accurate answer.

I am purely a visual observer. After destroying many rolls of Kodak Ektachrome in my Olympus OM-1 on a 6" Newtonian back in the early 1980's I decided astrophotography wasn't for me and I was going to spend the rest of my astronomy days as a purely visual observer and so it has been.

Peter's image of M20 is excellent. However the stars in HN40 are "burnt out" and difficult to distinguish as a multiple star complex as such. That having been said it's probably the best I have seen so far. I have seen many other really nice amateur images of M20 over the past decade but in every case the multiple star complex HN40 is not distinguishable as a multiple star complex as such, and is basically a "bright blob".

Is this because long exposure times are required to get the required detail in the nebula complex itself which cause the 2 brighter stars in HN40 (A & B) to burn out, or become overexposed. If someone was to set up their exposures so as to properly capture HN40 as a multiple star complex (4 stars) what would happen to the image quality on the rest of the nebula?

Cheers,
John B

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

I don't mean to hijack this thread but I am seeking some guidance here. I am asking it here because there are some knowledgeable imagers who have contributed to this thread that can probably give me an accurate answer.

I am purely a visual observer. After destroying many rolls of Kodak Ektachrome in my Olympus OM-1 on a 6" Newtonian back in the early 1980's I decided astrophotography wasn't for me and I was going to spend the rest of my astronomy days as a purely visual observer and so it has been.

Peter's image of M20 is excellent. However the stars in HN40 are "burnt out" and difficult to distinguish as a multiple star complex as such. That having been said it's probably the best I have seen so far. I have seen many other really nice amateur images of M20 over the past decade but in every case the multiple star complex HN40 is not distinguishable as a multiple star complex as such, and is basically a "bright blob".

Is this because long exposure times are required to get the required detail in the nebula complex itself which cause the 2 brighter stars in HN40 (A & B) to burn out, or become overexposed. If someone was to set up their exposures so as to properly capture HN40 as a multiple star complex (4 stars) what would happen to the image quality on the rest of the nebula?

Cheers,
John B

The difficulty is one of blending the stars to still look natural, despite a much shorter exposure time (which will indeed resolve the group).

When you then try to match the brightness levels... noise in the shorter exposures also becomes a problem...

Lastly I did indeed try short exposures (2 minutes) to better resolve the core stars...they were still too bright!