Yes, something that has been imaged before for a change (as opposed to RCW68-69). Paul Haese was the first to go deep on this target. I didn't spend as much time acquiring data as he did but at F/3.5, its deep enough for what is not a dim area of the sky. I had imaged this scene back in 2011 completing a four panel mosaic which can be seen here. One of my favorite areas for winter imaging.
Processed in CCDStack, MaximDL and Photoshop. Given the target, I went for a dark and sinister look to this image. Vibrant red excited HII of RCW113 providing some contrast to the dark nebula. I ensured I still captured the dusty, murky tones as the dark nebula begins to mix with the HII. This was present in the straight RGB so blended using lighten mode. I couldn't find any signs of refection nebulosity amongst RCW113 so a [Ha+R]GB composite seemed fitting. Fun to process. I may look at doing a few more dark nebs in the future.
Cheers Marc. I was looking to obtain a rich HA red as RCW113 is quite bright. I could perhaps tone it down to give in more of a blood red look. May have even made the image a little more sinister. Photoshop selective colour tool is gold when it comes to Ha blends.
Not my favourite Jase. I think I am not a fan of HaRGB as it lacks the vibrance of a luminance layer. The Ha colour is also not my favourite although that's personal taste and the stars lack colour and are a bit too dominant. I imaged this area last year with the TEC180 and it took quite a bit of processing before I was happy with it. Basically its a very starry area and they can dominant to the general detraction of the image's focus.
The dark nebula areas stand out nicely though so the Wolf is clear.
Ah yes The Wolf. It seems so long ago now. It's a really interesting looking object. Good colours Jase, detail and sinisterness.
Thanks Paul! Yes I think you imaged it back in 2013 if I'm not mistaken. Without doubt a benchmark image. I actually like the colours you put together as they are more consumable than what I present. The vibrant Ha red is not to everyone's liking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevec35
Gee you're on a roll with these RCW objects Jase! This one's a stunner! The impression of a running wolf is very clear.
Cheers
Steve
Hey Steve, Thanks! I think overall I've only imaged around 12 RCW objects in total. I've got a long way to go if I'm going to try image the entire catalog! Some are just too obscure I suspect, or need far more focal length than what I have on hand at present. Pleased you liked it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spookyer
Very nice Jase
I don't have that catalog in astroplanner to find it. Does anyone know how I would access the SL catalog?
Brett
Thanks Brett. TheSkyX also has the Sandqvist & Lindroos catalog if configured to display them. Not to be confused with the Shapley & Lindsay who catalogued clusters in the LMC!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Great result, Jase. Very woofy!
You can always plate solve the image to get the coordinates, Brett. Upload to here: http://nova.astrometry.net/upload
Cheers,
Rick.
Cheers Rick! Thanks for checking it out. Astrometry.net is a very cool resource, especially for the even more obscure stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
An excellent SL17 Jase, the Wolf is so gnarly This and Macus's version are the two best I have seen, great result.
Mike
Hey Mike, Thanks! Marcus' image is a great rendition. There are few out there. Pleased you liked it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
Very sharp image and great colours Jason.
However, I cannot help it and when looking at the image, instead of a sinister beast, I see a smiling wolf with big fluffy ears...
Thanks Slawomir! A happy fluffy-eared wolf...sounds like a character from a kids cartoon. Perhaps I should photoshop some reflection neb pointy teeth. Thanks for checking it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Indeed, one of the better renditions in the aether, putting it squarely on the top shelf.
Impressive.
Cheers Peter! Not sure about the top shelf. With fresh eyes, I think I could make some positive changes to the image. Its a never ending quest for improvements yet I'm going to resist on a repro as I've got other data to work on. Pleased you liked it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Not my favourite Jase. I think I am not a fan of HaRGB as it lacks the vibrance of a luminance layer. The Ha colour is also not my favourite although that's personal taste and the stars lack colour and are a bit too dominant. I imaged this area last year with the TEC180 and it took quite a bit of processing before I was happy with it. Basically its a very starry area and they can dominant to the general detraction of the image's focus.
The dark nebula areas stand out nicely though so the Wolf is clear.
Greg.
Hey Greg, You make a fair point on the starry field. SL17 is in a star rich area in the MilkyWay so I don't think there is a way of avoid this, nor would I want to incorrectly portray the area. Stars are there to embrace, not butcher. What I found interesting was your comment that you want to see luminance data, but you don't want to see so many stars. Luminance filtered data is only going to amplify the star field so its rather counter intuitive. I'm also not sure where you got the HaRGB from...this is a [Ha+R]GB, yes there is a difference. I think if I were to add a luminance to this image, I would use the red filtered data anyway as the stellar profile is tighter. No need to use a textbook clear filtered data as a luminance for neb work. Anyway, thanks for the good feedback. I may pick up some pointers from you with your RH images given you're going to face the same starry challenges. Just remember to embrace, not butcher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanP
Love the Wolfie …
Although as Greg has said it’s a very “starry” area, the stars can be treated with the Photoshop Star-Visibility plug-in
Thanks Ian! I do have a star reduction tool for PS. I use it sparingly now and then. I find it can mess with the relationship between large and small stars which distorts the presentation. Something I wish to avoid. Thanks for checking it out.
Hey Greg, You make a fair point on the starry field. SL17 is in a star rich area in the MilkyWay so I don't think there is a way of avoid this, nor would I want to incorrectly portray the area. Stars are there to embrace, not butcher. What I found interesting was your comment that you want to see luminance data, but you don't want to see so many stars. Luminance filtered data is only going to amplify the star field so its rather counter intuitive. I'm also not sure where you got the HaRGB from...this is a [Ha+R]GB, yes there is a difference. I think if I were to add a luminance to this image, I would use the red filtered data anyway as the stellar profile is tighter. No need to use a textbook clear filtered data as a luminance for neb work. Anyway, thanks for the good feedback. I may pick up some pointers from you with your RH images given you're going to face the same starry challenges. Just remember to embrace, not butcher.
Embracing embracing. I am humming the mantra. Good point though and of course you are right. The stars do need to be respected. I usually find though that the luminance data has the tightest stars. Your stars colours are quite pastel compared to what I go for (personal taste) and perhaps more accurate. David Malin has made that point that he studied star colours and wrote a book about it and that they are in fact pastel shades.
Your setup and mine are relatively similar so yes we do face similar image challenges. The RHA tends to blow out the bright stars quickly so I am thinking either even shorter subs to compensate or handle in post processing. What sub lengths do you use? Your bright stars seem fine but your average star sizes are a little large compared to the Honders (its also shorter focal length 1159mm). Perhaps that is merely the focal length - nearly 1400mm. I noticed my TEC180FL at 1260mm gave largish stars (with 9 micron pixels) whereas the AP140 (1050mm focal length) gave very tight stars. The CDK17 gives quite tight stars under good seeing (although broader with the Trius 694). I predict your 16070 camera will give better stars because of the deeper wells. You may need to fine tune your tilt or spacings a tad as I suspect they are not quite there. The 16070 from images I have seen is a strong performer and I look forward to your 16070 images. Its a sensor I am considering at some point.
The Honders is particularly fussy to tilt and perhaps that is true of any F3.8 type scope. Also I imagine tolerances for spacing from the corrector and are even more fussy at F3.44 (1396 focal length divided by 406.4mm aperture).
Greg.
Thanks Ian! I do have a star reduction tool for PS. I use it sparingly now and then. I find it can mess with the relationship between large and small stars which distorts the presentation. Something I wish to avoid. Thanks for checking it out.[/QUOTE]
Last edited by gregbradley; 01-06-2015 at 03:58 PM.
Very nice! Even the full resolution mosaic is lovely! I think it's always difficult to work with and has RGB for the reds. I have to learn a lot for this.
Cheers,
Fabiomax
