ASTRO: M65

I couldn't really fit both M65 and M66 on the chip very well without
rotating the camera from north up. So I had to photograph them
individually. Here's the dull member of the triplet.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10', RGB=2x10' all binned 2x2, 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".

Rick, I certainly wouldn't call this dull. You got a tremendous amount of
detail in the dark lanes.
I only have crappy shots of M65 and M66 and never get around to reshoot them
because there are so many others that I have not imaged at all...

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news
I couldn't really fit both M65 and M66 on the chip very well without
rotating the camera from north up. So I had to photograph them
individually. Here's the dull member of the triplet.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10', RGB=2x10' all binned 2x2, 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".

Rick Johnson wrote in newsLKdnfGQ_
:

I couldn't really fit both M65 and M66 on the chip very well without
rotating the camera from north up. So I had to photograph them
individually. Here's the dull member of the triplet.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10', RGB=2x10' all binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME

Rick

If that's the dull one, I can't wait to see the other!

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Nice color Rick... you are recording good data these days... makes for fine
images... The backgrouond is quite black on my monitor....

--
Regards, Doug W.
www.photonsfate.com
"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
news
I couldn't really fit both M65 and M66 on the chip very well without
rotating the camera from north up. So I had to photograph them
individually. Here's the dull member of the triplet.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10', RGB=2x10' all binned 2x2, 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".

Doug W. wrote:

Nice color Rick... you are recording good data these days... makes for fine
images... The backgrouond is quite black on my monitor....

Thanks. I hope it wasn't really black. It's not so much the taking but
the processing. I'm learning how to keep the very faint detail yet get
a nice even dark gray background. In a few years I many start to grasp
Photoshop. At least I'm slowly getting better at it. I do have a nice
dark location. In 10 minute frames binned 2x2 the background count is
usually about 450. I still can't process a faint image with moon light
raising the count to say 1500. I end up with a very uneven shot. So I
know I have a ways to go yet.

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".

Skywise wrote:

Rick Johnson wrote in newsLKdnfGQ_
:


I couldn't really fit both M65 and M66 on the chip very well without
rotating the camera from north up. So I had to photograph them
individually. Here's the dull member of the triplet.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=4x10', RGB=2x10' all binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME

Rick


If that's the dull one, I can't wait to see the other!

Brian

Of the three in the triplet M65 is the dull one. I was speaking
comparitively. NGC 3628 I posted earlier
http://www.usenet-replayer.com/3/4/0...289043.13.jpeg
is the really dramatic one to me. M66 in the middle somewhere. Still
working on that, maybe tomorrow. I have the Lake Association newsletter
to get out before I can play with it any more.

Cloudy but no rain in sight so no imaging this new moon.

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 couldn't really fit both M65 and M66 on the chip very well......

Mosaic time!

Or you could use the Rob Gendler technique of pasting deep sky object
images from a large scope into wide-field images taken with a small
refractor or tel-lens. He gets the wide field and background with the lens
and the detail in the deep sky object with the large telescope.

Great image BTW.......

George N

It is black on my screen... but mine is not calibrated beyond the method
that comes with PS... Adobe Gamma I think it is called.... So there is room
for difference... I also find that in PS I need to select menu -
view-proof setup-monitor RGB in order for the "save for the web" action to
match my processed image... If I forget to make the monitor RGB selection as
I begin to process, then the save for web image has a much darker background
than my processed image... I wonder if my images seem to have a bright
background on your monitor?.... don't count M10 as it is pushed a fair bit.

--
Regards, Doug W.
www.photonsfate.com
"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


Doug W. wrote:

Nice color Rick... you are recording good data these days... makes for
fine images... The backgrouond is quite black on my monitor....

Thanks. I hope it wasn't really black. It's not so much the taking but
the processing. I'm learning how to keep the very faint detail yet get a
nice even dark gray background. In a few years I many start to grasp
Photoshop. At least I'm slowly getting better at it. I do have a nice
dark location. In 10 minute frames binned 2x2 the background count is
usually about 450. I still can't process a faint image with moon light
raising the count to say 1500. I end up with a very uneven shot. So I
know I have a ways to go yet.

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".

Doug W. wrote:
It is black on my screen... but mine is not calibrated beyond the method
that comes with PS... Adobe Gamma I think it is called.... So there is room
for difference... I also find that in PS I need to select menu -
view-proof setup-monitor RGB in order for the "save for the web" action to
match my processed image... If I forget to make the monitor RGB selection as
I begin to process, then the save for web image has a much darker background
than my processed image... I wonder if my images seem to have a bright
background on your monitor?.... don't count M10 as it is pushed a fair bit.


I don't have any problem with it saving differently than I saw it though
I don't use the save for net option. I save it as a tiff then convert
to jpg (under a different name of course) as it seems to give me better
results when compared to the method you outline above. Any resizing was
done before the TIFF save. Original is saved to a different physical
disk, a network disk that isn't in any of my computers. The JPG is
saved to my internet computer when converted (different than the one
running the observatory and doing the processing).

Most of my color backgrounds are a bit darker than my black and white
though faint detail seems about the same either way. I use a routine to
neutral the background without altering the objects, even faint ones.
That seems to darken the background by removing noise but leaving real
objects. Faint stars and nebulosity remain the same when I put them on
the screen side by side.

I see your backgrounds a bit lighter than my black and white shots but
not by much. Color has a bit more difference but they aren't all that
black on my screen. I didn't process either of the two to go really
faint as I got only noise in the galaxies fainter parts with no increase
in faint detail. That did knock down some background galaxies.

For color I used the PS routine but for luminosity I use the 32 level
gray scale that is so common around the net and adjust so each is as
close to an equal change as possible. I can't quite achieve that at the
top end but the bottom end is very even in the steps. My black and
white backgrounds are usually about half way between the second and 3rd
step up from black while color is midway between the first and second up
from black. Looking at the luminosity value on an 8 bit scale I try for
11 to 14. Black and white will be about 18 to 21, sometimes higher when
noise allows.

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".