Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Astronomical Photography Forum
Rosette Nebula (NGC2244)
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jan 7, 2017 12:47:15   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
Stack of 107 - 180 second exposures. Cropped a lot, was playing around to see where I need to frame the image. Will have to retry for the bigger image when the clouds go away.


(Download)

Reply
Jan 7, 2017 20:06:17   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Europa wrote:
Stack of 107 - 180 second exposures. Cropped a lot, was playing around to see where I need to frame the image. Will have to retry for the bigger image when the clouds go away.


Beautiful. What equipment were you using for this?

Reply
Jan 7, 2017 20:14:49   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
Hey Jim. I was using the RASA with a QHY12 OSC CCD. Not too bad for shooting in the San Fernando Valley.

Reply
 
 
Jan 7, 2017 21:26:21   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Europa wrote:
Hey Jim. I was using the RASA with a QHY12 OSC CCD. Not too bad for shooting in the San Fernando Valley.


I created a FOV box in StarryNight to represent the view of your RASA with the QHY12 and the Rosette Nebula should look like this. The RASA 11 has a focal length of 620mm at f2.2. The QHY 12 has a sensor size of 24x16.4mm. This yields a FOV of 2.2 x 1.5 deg. As you can see here, the nebula just barely fits within the box. You didn't say if you were using a focal reducer or not.

For size comparison purposes, I have added an image on the moon showing three circles and it is just larger than 0.5 degrees. Also 1 degree and 2 degree circles as well.

And then in the last image, the same 3 circles to compare the size of the Rosette Nebula. As you can see, it fits easily in a 2 degree circle.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jan 7, 2017 23:02:22   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
Thanks Jim, Thats very cool. I didn't know starrynights had that. I think I own it, but prob a old version.

Reply
Jan 8, 2017 00:09:37   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Europa wrote:
Thanks Jim, Thats very cool. I didn't know starrynights had that. I think I own it, but prob a old version.


With your copy of StarryNight, try this: Type in FOV in the upper right and get a list of available choices. This list can be expanded as desired. To get out of this mode, remove FOV.

You can see an entry here were I added your RASA & QHY12. When in FOV mode, right click on the main screen and choose "Add FOV Indicator" and then enter desired parameters. In the example I am showing, you can see 3 choices selected.

I am also adding a really nice web site to calculate FOV. Notice it allows a number of ways to input the parameters. Shown is the RASA with a FL of 620 and using a sensor of 24 x 16.4mm and when compute is hit, you can see the width and height in degrees in the upper right. Subject distance is not really needed for stars and deep sky objects.

http://www.scantips.com/lights/fieldofview.html#top


(Download)



Reply
Jan 8, 2017 15:11:27   #
CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.
 
Europa wrote:
Stack of 107 - 180 second exposures. Cropped a lot, was playing around to see where I need to frame the image. Will have to retry for the bigger image when the clouds go away.

Really nice work Brian.
Craig

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2017 16:43:32   #
bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
 
Europa wrote:
Stack of 107 - 180 second exposures. Cropped a lot, was playing around to see where I need to frame the image. Will have to retry for the bigger image when the clouds go away.


A very nice image... But why do you present it as so dark? A huge amount of nebulosity lost in the background.

Just my thoughts.

bwa

Reply
Jan 8, 2017 17:18:03   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
Thanks Craig.

bwa, I do have a tendency to go go dark, I try to bring it up...but old habits are hard to break. I also notice, that when I post here, the photo is slightly different. This one I re-uploaded the image 3 times, each time I was backing off the saturation. To me this one still looks over saturated, but that may be do the darkness too. Thanks for the feedback.

Reply
Jan 8, 2017 17:28:14   #
bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
 
Europa wrote:
Thanks Craig.

bwa, I do have a tendency to go go dark, I try to bring it up...but old habits are hard to break. I also notice, that when I post here, the photo is slightly different. This one I re-uploaded the image 3 times, each time I was backing off the saturation. To me this one still looks over saturated, but that may be do the darkness too. Thanks for the feedback.

I probably error on the other side. I like a bright background and normally push nebulosity too far but that is simply my approach.

I don't want to step on any toes but I downloaded your image and applied my (Lightroom) approach for comparison, shown below:

bwa


(Download)

Reply
Jan 8, 2017 17:37:19   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
No problem there. I think I already errored in the early stages of processing to recover at the end for the brightness, or at least as much as you have here. As I go thru the processing, I try to keep the blacks at 30,30,30.

Have to see how it comes out when I get some more exposure time on this...not sure when the clouds are going away tho.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2017 18:07:56   #
bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
 
Europa wrote:
No problem there. I think I already errored in the early stages of processing to recover at the end for the brightness, or at least as much as you have here. As I go thru the processing, I try to keep the blacks at 30,30,30.

Have to see how it comes out when I get some more exposure time on this...not sure when the clouds are going away tho.

When I process I simply make sure I don't clip the black/white ends of the histogram then worry about brightness, contrast, clarity, haze, defringing, star size/shape/color, sharpness, etc. in PixInsight/Lightroom postprocessing.

Astrophotography processing is always an adventure. I always get a laugh out of regular photographers talking about how hard their little tweaks are. 😀😀😀

bwa

Reply
Jan 8, 2017 19:16:41   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
bwana wrote:
When I process I simply make sure I don't clip the black/white ends of the histogram then worry about brightness, contrast, clarity, haze, defringing, star size/shape/color, sharpness, etc. in PixInsight/Lightroom postprocessing.

Astrophotography processing is always an adventure. I always get a laugh out of regular photographers talking about how hard their little tweaks are. 😀😀😀

bwa


It is difficult but I think the pros have a good understanding of settings, etc. wish I had that...maybe in a few years after seeing others work and learning from others.


Reply
Jan 8, 2017 20:47:38   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Europa wrote:
It is difficult but I think the pros have a good understanding of settings, etc. wish I had that...maybe in a few years after seeing others work and learning from others.



I used to think that those beautiful images I saw were all done with one image. I know better now. Even with Hubble, they capture many, many images and stack, and tweak.

Reply
Jan 8, 2017 20:51:46   #
bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
 
JimH123 wrote:
I used to think that those beautiful images I saw were all done with one image. I know better now. Even with Hubble, they capture many, many images and stack, and tweak.

Yes indeed, and multiple spectrum bandwidths, etc. And with Hubble you don't have to worry about clouds and atmospheric distortions.

bwa

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Astronomical Photography Forum
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.