Another pass at M82 processing.
Feb 9, 2021 18:21:43 #
Ballard
Loc: Grass Valley, California
I did some more playing with the image I posted yesterday of M82 and stretched it a bit more. This brought out more of the galaxy, a lot more stars, a number of small dim galaxies and a bit of the IFN. I'm sure on a clearer night more of the IFN could be captured. All comments, suggestions and questions are welcome.
Here is a link to my previous post of M82.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-685007-1.html
Here is a link to my previous post of M82.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-685007-1.html
Feb 10, 2021 09:35:21 #
Feb 10, 2021 12:00:21 #
Ballard
Loc: Grass Valley, California
alberio wrote:
Beautiful, but maybe a little less saturation?
Hi alberio
Thanks for checking out the image and for the comment. I might be a bit over cooked (It depends on which monitor I'm viewing it on, my old monitor looks fine the new one it appears to intense).
Feb 10, 2021 12:31:24 #
That used to really bother me, the differences.
In the 1990's I was publishing to the www. Things coded to Windows Explorer looked different than the same things coded for Netscape. So I had to test my web pages to both browsers. PITA!
Later, I ran into monitor differences (now referred to as displays, be cause they are all LED and Digital.)
One thing I'm doing now is I have two of the same brand of displays (Samsung), and they seem to be even in appearances if I drag from one to the other.
I think taking pictures of DSO's is easier than dealing with the post processing....
I'm so bad at it, I just do the minimal as I can. Kinda like wipe it down with a lint free cloth, and hope the shine blinds the judges... 
In the 1990's I was publishing to the www. Things coded to Windows Explorer looked different than the same things coded for Netscape. So I had to test my web pages to both browsers. PITA!
Later, I ran into monitor differences (now referred to as displays, be cause they are all LED and Digital.)
One thing I'm doing now is I have two of the same brand of displays (Samsung), and they seem to be even in appearances if I drag from one to the other.
I think taking pictures of DSO's is easier than dealing with the post processing....
I'm so bad at it, I just do the minimal as I can. Kinda like wipe it down with a lint free cloth, and hope the shine blinds the judges...
Feb 10, 2021 13:17:49 #
Ballard wrote:
I did some more playing with the image I posted yesterday of M82 and stretched it a bit more. This brought out more of the galaxy, a lot more stars, a number of small dim galaxies and a bit of the IFN. I'm sure on a clearer night more of the IFN could be captured. All comments, suggestions and questions are welcome.
Here is a link to my previous post of M82.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-685007-1.html
Here is a link to my previous post of M82.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-685007-1.html
Feb 10, 2021 13:34:02 #
Ballard
Loc: Grass Valley, California
SonnyE wrote:
That used to really bother me, the differences. br... (show quote)
Hi SonnyE
Thanks for checking out the updated image and for the comment. I haver one old view sonic monitor and and a new Del monitor. The older monitor is a bit duller and I ended up setting the color based on the older montior, it probably is still a bit over cooked. This image was bit more challenging due to the loss in contrast due to the clouds and after stacking had a lot of green to remove, I probably over compensated a bit. This was my first DSO in months but I had the itch and took a bunch of shots even with the high thin overcast.
Feb 10, 2021 13:34:54 #
Ballard
Loc: Grass Valley, California
J-SPEIGHT wrote:
Hi J-SPEIGHT
Thanks for checking out the M82 photo and for the Thumbs up.
Feb 10, 2021 16:24:51 #
Ballard
Loc: Grass Valley, California
Another pass at processing. Stretched a bit more and didn't over saturate the color so much. Although the background may be a bit noisier, there is more detail in the arms of M82 and more of the gas flowing out of the galaxy is visible. The added stretch also brought out more of the IFN and the small dim background galaxies are more visible. Let me know If you this one better.
Feb 10, 2021 21:14:54 #
Ballard
Loc: Grass Valley, California
Note: although the DSLR is blind to the hydrogen Alpha line, it does appear that there is some of the hydrogen beta line in the gas coming out of the central area of M82, that appears a more aqua color (~486nm). I have noticed this before in other images taken with my DSLR where there is an aqua color in my photos that appears bright in the hydrogen alpha (~656nm very red) line of other photos that folks have taken with a hydrogen alpha filter. NOTE: The Aqua colored knots along the edge of NGC 4565 that I took last year with my DSLR. In photos taken with a hydrogen alpha filter this are bright in the Hydrogen alpha line (normally presented a bright red).
Feb 15, 2021 17:09:29 #
Feb 15, 2021 18:34:02 #
Ballard
Loc: Grass Valley, California
BigDale wrote:
I like this processing best. Good job 👍
Hi BigDale
I like it better also. It is a more color realistic version of the image.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.