NGC4038 Antennae galaxy in moonlight

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Hi Guys

LRGB in (half) moon light is really not a good idea. Doable, but lots more data needed, and fiddling in PS. I dont think ill bother again .

The background glow was huge, and gradients horrendous.

Haveing said that, perhaps its better than not at all if the weather doesnt cooperate at the appropriate times.

NGC4038 Antennae Galaxy (imaged with half moon up)
LRGB Lum 150min 20 off 10 min bin 1 subs : RGB 50min 10 off 5 min bin2 subs each
Taken on a Meade 12" LX200R OTA, G11, ST10XME, at f6.7

Cheers

[jase (Jason)]

Given the circumstances Fred, its not a bad effort. Gradient removal would have been a rather complex procedure...not for the faint hearted. I would have gone the RGB from RDO and just acquired the Lum at home...

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Thanks Jase. Well, I downloaded another trial GradientX just for this after last useing it a year or more ago, and it didnt help much. Dunno if its worth it. I then just slamed levels.

Sometimes I wonder if a lower quality image is worth posting given the urge to constantly improve is always in mind. You know what I mean im sure having migrated to Lightbuckets . But always only moving forward can also result in next to no pic posting and frustration.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Hmmm?...looks like a bruised scrotum in a stormy sky

Love ya mate

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

.......Doable, but lots more data needed, and fiddling in PS. I dont think ill bother again .

The background glow was huge, and gradients horrendous.

Hummm.... imaging *really faint stuff* from the burbs....tough gig.

Stars nice and round.

Data stretched a little too far me thinks....(sometimes less, is more)

[jase (Jason)]

I recently upgraded the GradX plug-in to CS4 (64bit ver.)...screams along. The trick with GradX is to carefully lasso the features and feather like crazy. If it alters the extend object too much duplicate the original first and introduce it again (after GradX has been run on the other layer) as lighten mode and mask. By the looks of your image, CCDStack's flatten background tool probably would have done a reasonable job.

Yes, the quest to produce excellent images is an ongoing process...I've got a few images that will never see public eye until I can work the data adequately. Can always go back and collect more to improve on the result. I simply don't post if I'm not personally happy with the result. They probably look ok to someone else, but thats not the point...

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Hmmm?...looks like a bruised scrotum in a stormy sky

Love ya mate

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Thanks Jase, Mike, Peter

mmm, OK, ill try selecting with GradientX. Yeah, stretching, thats for sure.

Ahh Mike, your brain works in strange ways (and yours Marc)

[atalas]

Nice work on a tough one Fred!

[Ric]

I'll never look at the Antenna Galaxy again without giggling to myself.

Still a great image Fred, the extensions look great and the actual galaxy detail is very deep.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Pretty good try...considering.

[Kevnool (Kev)]

To the untrained eye its a great image...........cheers Kev.

[gregbradley]

Gee whizz Fred you picked a tough one from a suburban area under moonlight!

I well remember trying that with the 12.5 RCOS and an ST2000 from my backyard and I could vaguely discern the shape amongst a sea of snow!

I decided not to pursue it at that point from the burbs.

Hard enough at a dark site. Small too.

Good effort considering.

Greg.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Thanks Louie, Ric (your sick too),Carl, Kev and Greg

Sheesh, I didnt think to see how dim it was. 10 min Lum subs on a NABG cam gave pretty good signal .Mind you, I havent used Lum for a while, and well the S/N was appaling, perhaps thats why the background was so high too (3500ADU back ground, and the signal was 4000, so only 500 left after leveling !!!). Tempted to give it another go now with no moon if its supposed to be that hard.