NGC891 reprocessed with color data

I finally got some luminosity data go with the Luminosity shot I posted
a couple months back. Again, the color seems wrong as the core is too
red, just doesn't look natural. Not sure what is wrong. Might be
because it was slightly into a pine tree for the last 2 blue frames and
I over compensated. Not sure the green may have been in the tree as
well. I know the red was clear. I had to wait out clouds to get this
and forgot it would soon go into that tree. I'd love to cut it down but
the DNR says it is in the "Shore Impact Zone" and without a permit I
can't cut it down. It must be diseased for that to be issued. Now if I
could just train a few beaver to like Red Pine.

14" LX200R@f/10, Lum=6x5 RGB=3x5 each all binned 2x2, STL-11000M,
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".

Rick, colour looks OK to me. And the good luminance gives a very nice image.

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
I finally got some luminosity data go with the Luminosity shot I posted
a couple months back. Again, the color seems wrong as the core is too
red, just doesn't look natural. Not sure what is wrong. Might be
because it was slightly into a pine tree for the last 2 blue frames and
I over compensated. Not sure the green may have been in the tree as
well. I know the red was clear. I had to wait out clouds to get this
and forgot it would soon go into that tree. I'd love to cut it down but
the DNR says it is in the "Shore Impact Zone" and without a permit I
can't cut it down. It must be diseased for that to be issued. Now if I
could just train a few beaver to like Red Pine.

14" LX200R@f/10, Lum=6x5 RGB=3x5 each all binned 2x2, STL-11000M,
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".

"Rick Johnson" wrote
....
I finally got some luminosity data go with the Luminosity shot I posted
a couple months back. Again, the color seems wrong as the core is too
red, just doesn't look natural. Not sure what is wrong.........

Rick,

I'm not so sure that that red is not accurate. It could be dust you
picked up in IR or H-II nebula or gas streaming from supernovae.

I was trying to ID that neat spiral galaxy in the lower left corner of
your image and the best I could come up with (from TheSky 5) is:

CGCG 539-5
Galaxy
Other ID: CGCG 538-59, PGC 09101
Magnitude: 15.8
RA: 02h 23m 53.6s
Dec: +42° 12' 22" (Epoch 2000)

George N

George Normandin wrote:
"Rick Johnson" wrote
...

I finally got some luminosity data go with the Luminosity shot I posted
a couple months back. Again, the color seems wrong as the core is too
red, just doesn't look natural. Not sure what is wrong.........


Rick,

I'm not so sure that that red is not accurate. It could be dust you
picked up in IR or H-II nebula or gas streaming from supernovae.

I was trying to ID that neat spiral galaxy in the lower left corner of
your image and the best I could come up with (from TheSky 5) is:

CGCG 539-5
Galaxy
Other ID: CGCG 538-59, PGC 09101
Magnitude: 15.8
RA: 02h 23m 53.6s
Dec: +42° 12' 22" (Epoch 2000)

George N


I was going to look it up but never got around to it. Looks like a
possible interacting pair. There's a blue knot at the end of that drawn
out arm that could be a second galaxy and the reason it has such
extended arms. Even the short one seems somewhat extended. At least
the color of that little guy looks right. Orange center and blue arms.
Nice thing about that over 30 minute FOV. You pick up lots of
interesting fuzzies along the way.

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".