ASTRO: SH2-187

Here's another one taken over 8 nights and 3 months due to the clouds.
In this case I wanted a lot more data as this guy is super faint but
that wasn't to be and now with all the ice in the air it will have to
wait for next year before I can add to it so will go with what I have so
far. I don't know why it came out sort of a dirty red color instead of
HII pink. There are a lot of dust lanes and maybe the whole area is
overlaid with dust or my color data is off from being taken in different
months and sky conditions. I just got the blue a few days ago with lots
of fogging due to ice. When I subtracted that out the blue signal was
weak compared to the other two. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I found few images of this one on the net to compare to. One has it my
color, another pink. Many are of the WRONG object. I found more shots
of NGC 7822/SH2-171 identified as this object than I did of the real
one. I don't understand the confusion. That guy is on my list but will
have to wait for next year now. He's over an hour west of the real
SH2-187 and my skies won't support taking it before it is gone.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=5x10' RGB=2x10' all frames binned 3x3 to get enough
signal at f/10, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

that's a neat object Rick

usually when The Sky gets it wrong so does about half the amateurs that use
The Sky as the end all be all database

not sure if that's the issue here since the sharpless objects aren't a part
of it in stock form though...


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...
Here's another one taken over 8 nights and 3 months due to the clouds.
In this case I wanted a lot more data as this guy is super faint but
that wasn't to be and now with all the ice in the air it will have to
wait for next year before I can add to it so will go with what I have so
far. I don't know why it came out sort of a dirty red color instead of
HII pink. There are a lot of dust lanes and maybe the whole area is
overlaid with dust or my color data is off from being taken in different
months and sky conditions. I just got the blue a few days ago with lots
of fogging due to ice. When I subtracted that out the blue signal was
weak compared to the other two. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I found few images of this one on the net to compare to. One has it my
color, another pink. Many are of the WRONG object. I found more shots
of NGC 7822/SH2-171 identified as this object than I did of the real
one. I don't understand the confusion. That guy is on my list but will
have to wait for next year now. He's over an hour west of the real
SH2-187 and my skies won't support taking it before it is gone.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=5x10' RGB=2x10' all frames binned 3x3 to get enough
signal at f/10, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

The Sharpless catalog was included in the professional astronomer
version of TS6 and unfortunately it had a systematic( 8 degree, arc-
minute, can't remember) error.

I had compiled my own SDB of sharpless objects and after imaging SH187
two years ago, I looked on the web and discovered the two or more
images of CED 214 area mislabeled as Sh 187.

When SB made their sharpless SDB on available on their web-site, I
downloaded and tried it and discovered the error. Took them a couple
of days to correct the error and re-post the recompiled SDB on their
web site.

I've a G2v calibrated lrgb image of Sh2-187 at

http://astrophotos.net/pages/Nebula/sh2-187.htm


Merry Christmas to everyone.



On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:52:28 -0800, "Richard Crisp"
wrote:

that's a neat object Rick

usually when The Sky gets it wrong so does about half the amateurs that use
The Sky as the end all be all database

not sure if that's the issue here since the sharpless objects aren't a part
of it in stock form though...


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
.. .
Here's another one taken over 8 nights and 3 months due to the clouds.
In this case I wanted a lot more data as this guy is super faint but
that wasn't to be and now with all the ice in the air it will have to
wait for next year before I can add to it so will go with what I have so
far. I don't know why it came out sort of a dirty red color instead of
HII pink. There are a lot of dust lanes and maybe the whole area is
overlaid with dust or my color data is off from being taken in different
months and sky conditions. I just got the blue a few days ago with lots
of fogging due to ice. When I subtracted that out the blue signal was
weak compared to the other two. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I found few images of this one on the net to compare to. One has it my
color, another pink. Many are of the WRONG object. I found more shots
of NGC 7822/SH2-171 identified as this object than I did of the real
one. I don't understand the confusion. That guy is on my list but will
have to wait for next year now. He's over an hour west of the real
SH2-187 and my skies won't support taking it before it is gone.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=5x10' RGB=2x10' all frames binned 3x3 to get enough
signal at f/10, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Glen,
I'd found that shot at a different URL. Didn't realize it was yours. I
can see the lack of blue in my shot compared to yours. That's what I
suspected. The blue was very weak due to being taking through so much
ice. Pushing it added way to much noise. I cranked back on red and
green to get a sort of balance but then the shot appeared washed out in
color. Even the RGB was weak. So I compromised and went with a somewhat
noisy but weak blue. I'll have to try again for the blue but now the
ice is in the air for the next three or four months making it a next
fall project. Assuming it ever does clear off. 4 new moons now of
clouds. It gets to you.

For Sharpless objects I just use the coordinates from SIMBAD and enter
them manually into The Sky. After checking the DSS plate for that
position to make sure something is there that looks like the object I'm
after. Several catalogs I downloaded that said they contained Sharpless
objects either had errors or weren't fully The Sky compatible I gave up
going that route. It only takes a couple seconds to type in the
coordinates. Though a time or two I forgot it defaults to today's date
for the epoch and didn't check the J2000 box so was "lost in space".
Only 7 years of precession makes a big difference for my small FOV.
I've found SIMBAD wrong a time or two as well. Even after Brian Skiff's
efforts to fix the errors in it. I don't think there is a totally
"correct" catalog of fainter objects out there.

Rick

wrote:
The Sharpless catalog was included in the professional astronomer
version of TS6 and unfortunately it had a systematic( 8 degree, arc-
minute, can't remember) error.

I had compiled my own SDB of sharpless objects and after imaging SH187
two years ago, I looked on the web and discovered the two or more
images of CED 214 area mislabeled as Sh 187.

When SB made their sharpless SDB on available on their web-site, I
downloaded and tried it and discovered the error. Took them a couple
of days to correct the error and re-post the recompiled SDB on their
web site.

I've a G2v calibrated lrgb image of Sh2-187 at

http://astrophotos.net/pages/Nebula/sh2-187.htm


Merry Christmas to everyone.



On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:52:28 -0800, "Richard Crisp"
wrote:


that's a neat object Rick

usually when The Sky gets it wrong so does about half the amateurs that use
The Sky as the end all be all database

not sure if that's the issue here since the sharpless objects aren't a part
of it in stock form though...


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

Here's another one taken over 8 nights and 3 months due to the clouds.
In this case I wanted a lot more data as this guy is super faint but
that wasn't to be and now with all the ice in the air it will have to
wait for next year before I can add to it so will go with what I have so
far. I don't know why it came out sort of a dirty red color instead of
HII pink. There are a lot of dust lanes and maybe the whole area is
overlaid with dust or my color data is off from being taken in different
months and sky conditions. I just got the blue a few days ago with lots
of fogging due to ice. When I subtracted that out the blue signal was
weak compared to the other two. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I found few images of this one on the net to compare to. One has it my
color, another pink. Many are of the WRONG object. I found more shots
of NGC 7822/SH2-171 identified as this object than I did of the real
one. I don't understand the confusion. That guy is on my list but will
have to wait for next year now. He's over an hour west of the real
SH2-187 and my skies won't support taking it before it is gone.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=5x10' RGB=2x10' all frames binned 3x3 to get enough
signal at f/10, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Do you happen to remember the different URL?


On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:43:48 -0600, Rick Johnson
wrote:

Glen,
I'd found that shot at a different URL. Didn't realize it was yours. I
can see the lack of blue in my shot compared to yours. That's what I
suspected. The blue was very weak due to being taking through so much
ice. Pushing it added way to much noise. I cranked back on red and
green to get a sort of balance but then the shot appeared washed out in
color. Even the RGB was weak. So I compromised and went with a somewhat
noisy but weak blue. I'll have to try again for the blue but now the
ice is in the air for the next three or four months making it a next
fall project. Assuming it ever does clear off. 4 new moons now of
clouds. It gets to you.

For Sharpless objects I just use the coordinates from SIMBAD and enter
them manually into The Sky. After checking the DSS plate for that
position to make sure something is there that looks like the object I'm
after. Several catalogs I downloaded that said they contained Sharpless
objects either had errors or weren't fully The Sky compatible I gave up
going that route. It only takes a couple seconds to type in the
coordinates. Though a time or two I forgot it defaults to today's date
for the epoch and didn't check the J2000 box so was "lost in space".
Only 7 years of precession makes a big difference for my small FOV.
I've found SIMBAD wrong a time or two as well. Even after Brian Skiff's
efforts to fix the errors in it. I don't think there is a totally
"correct" catalog of fainter objects out there.

Rick

wrote:
Do you happen to remember the different URL?


I started this image in September but only got 2 lum frames before
clouds shut me down. Sometime in October I came across the image I
mentioned and saved it for comparison when and if I ever finished mine.
I didn't save the URL. Then when you gave your link I thought I
recognized it as the same image. I didn't go back and look. But yours
is at a higher scale but shows exactly the same color balance and since
that's what I was looking at I thought they were the same.

So I went digging back through my history file which is set at 6 months
so is HUGE. I gave up and decided it quicker to find it again. Google
didn't have it nor did other search engines. I checked some forums I
monitor but not their either. I finally checked to see if someone had
posted it here so went to Usenet Replayer. I found it was your image
you had posted here that I'd copied. It was your "return" image. Don't
know how I forgot that. Being so much wider field than the one you just
gave me it didn't dawn on me it was yours when I went back and looked at
it on the hard drive.

I need new RAM chips but after nearly 7 decades mine seem no longer
available.

Rick

wrote in message
...
The Sharpless catalog was included in the professional astronomer
version of TS6 and unfortunately it had a systematic( 8 degree, arc-
minute, can't remember) error.


I am using TS5 but do own TS6 but never liked the way it looked after I got
it so I haven't used it.

I'm not familar with TS5 but agree with you about TS6. I use it only
for scope control, for planning and research I use Skymap Pro, Simbad
and Vizar.

doing some narrowband imaging this evening. Your images have inspired
me to try narrowband again.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:29:12 GMT, "Richard Crisp"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
The Sharpless catalog was included in the professional astronomer
version of TS6 and unfortunately it had a systematic( 8 degree, arc-
minute, can't remember) error.


I am using TS5 but do own TS6 but never liked the way it looked after I got
it so I haven't used it.

It reminds me of a spider for some reason.
Rick

Richard Crisp wrote:

that's a neat object Rick

usually when The Sky gets it wrong so does about half the amateurs that use
The Sky as the end all be all database

not sure if that's the issue here since the sharpless objects aren't a part
of it in stock form though...


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

Here's another one taken over 8 nights and 3 months due to the clouds.
In this case I wanted a lot more data as this guy is super faint but
that wasn't to be and now with all the ice in the air it will have to
wait for next year before I can add to it so will go with what I have so
far. I don't know why it came out sort of a dirty red color instead of
HII pink. There are a lot of dust lanes and maybe the whole area is
overlaid with dust or my color data is off from being taken in different
months and sky conditions. I just got the blue a few days ago with lots
of fogging due to ice. When I subtracted that out the blue signal was
weak compared to the other two. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I found few images of this one on the net to compare to. One has it my
color, another pink. Many are of the WRONG object. I found more shots
of NGC 7822/SH2-171 identified as this object than I did of the real
one. I don't understand the confusion. That guy is on my list but will
have to wait for next year now. He's over an hour west of the real
SH2-187 and my skies won't support taking it before it is gone.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=5x10' RGB=2x10' all frames binned 3x3 to get enough
signal at f/10, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Beautiful image Rick, there really seems to be a lot of dust in that region.
I just wanted to write that this is a new object to me, but I checked my
harddisk and found an image from last year. It is so much worse than yours
though that it's hard to identify it with your version
(http://www.slilge.de/Sharpless/sh2-187-24x10gut.jpg)

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Here's another one taken over 8 nights and 3 months due to the clouds.
In this case I wanted a lot more data as this guy is super faint but
that wasn't to be and now with all the ice in the air it will have to
wait for next year before I can add to it so will go with what I have so
far. I don't know why it came out sort of a dirty red color instead of
HII pink. There are a lot of dust lanes and maybe the whole area is
overlaid with dust or my color data is off from being taken in different
months and sky conditions. I just got the blue a few days ago with lots
of fogging due to ice. When I subtracted that out the blue signal was
weak compared to the other two. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I found few images of this one on the net to compare to. One has it my
color, another pink. Many are of the WRONG object. I found more shots
of NGC 7822/SH2-171 identified as this object than I did of the real
one. I don't understand the confusion. That guy is on my list but will
have to wait for next year now. He's over an hour west of the real
SH2-187 and my skies won't support taking it before it is gone.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=5x10' RGB=2x10' all frames binned 3x3 to get enough
signal at f/10, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".