M63 - 13/03/2007

I like the idea of adding the spikes alright, but perhaps they could have been created slightly better. Some are slightly off-centre from the star.

OK I'm gonna be blunt I'm afraid. Now understand this is just my opinion, I'm fully sure others will disagree with me on this. I feel that adding something that is not there on the raw data is a no-no. You might say well whats the difference between adding the spikes later and adding thread to get them on the source data IMO if they are in the source data then their size intensity etc is defined by the source data not the authors decision afterwrds. ANyway thats my two cent on the matter.

Does having the stars in the raw images make it any more difficult to process the images, as opposed to adding them in later on the final image?

I assume you mean does spikes in the raw data increase the processing difficulty. Having worked with and without spikes I'd say there is no difference.

Even in black and white, it is, well, stunning

Seanie, I'd even go further than that and say especially in black and white. I've often felt that monochrome images like this one have much more of an impact on the viewer. I think that in colour images the eye is drawn to the colour and you can miss out on the wonderful detail there is in an image like this.

Michael: BTW I've planned to do M63 as my next target when I finish the current one (M101). It will be really interesting to see just how much better the ST8 is than say my ATIK given the same relative exposure. Your is 10x6mins with a 12" (area 113 sq") my 10" area (78 sq in) therefore your scope has 1.44 the LGP of mine. Given this if we had the same camera I'd need 14.4 x 6 minutes to get the same photo. By doing this with the ATIK it should show just how good your ST8 really is!

I like the idea of adding the spikes alright, but perhaps they could have been created slightly better. Some are slightly off-centre from the star.

OK I'm gonna be blunt I'm afraid. Now understand this is just my opinion, I'm fully sure others will disagree with me on this. I feel that adding something that is not there on the raw data is a no-no. You might say well whats the difference between adding the spikes later and adding thread to get them on the source data IMO if they are in the source data then their size intensity etc is defined by the source data not the authors decision afterwrds. ANyway thats my two cent on the matter.

Dave,

My fault for not being more lucid. Ignoring the issue if the spikes are real or not, I think they enhance and beautify the image. In Michael's instance, they seem out of place because they are very thin and sharp and in contrast to the stars which are slightly blurry. If Michael had used a pair of strings, similar to my technique, I think the spikes would have been more subtle and more in congruence with the current image.

We are now getting into a stretch of good weather ... no better for me to illustrate what I am trying to say than with an image of my own where, hopefully, it will be sharp throughout and the spikes will further enhance the overall "ambience".

As for your opinion and being "raw", this is what we all want (at least speaking for myself). We are all friends and mature enough to be able to exchange ideas and criticism!

Even in black and white, it is, well, stunning

Seanie, I'd even go further than that and say especially in black and white. I've often felt that monochrome images like this one have much more of an impact on the viewer. I think that in colour images the eye is drawn to the colour and you can miss out on the wonderful detail there is in an image like this.

Makes an interesting debate that one. You're right, sometimes a black and white image holds more sway over its colour counterpart. Having seen in large detail what this galaxy is like in colour makes me appreciate this black and white image. As a reversal, I think I would prefer to see the same high quality image of Mike's shot of M1 a few threads back instead of his black and white one, as I think the colour images I have seen of similar size look better for that particular object.


Someone said something about the spikes too - too many images with spiked stars and the laws of artictic license will soon become taken advantage of. I would not prefer to see too many starry images with spikes, as it is something that just does not happen in real life.

Keep it real!

Michael,


Really good detail and structure and perfectly handled as far as the tones are concerned. I really like it ... as for the spikes, I think they add to the image overall (just my opinion).

I like the idea of adding the spikes alright, but perhaps they could have been created slightly better. Some are slightly off-centre from the star.
Does having the spikes on the stars in the raw images make it any more difficult to process the images, as opposed to adding them in later on the final image?

Michael,

There is absolutely NO impact. In fact what you will see is the spikes enhanced (and lengthened) once you stack and remove some of the noise via stacking. In other words, if you are impressed with the spikes you see in your individual images as you are capturing them, just wait until you reduce and stack.

Anyway, a non-issue for the processing thereafter. ZILCH!

Michael: BTW I've planned to do M63 as my next target when I finish the current one (M101).

This is awesome and perfect, for I hope to be capturing M63 and M101 as well over the next few days using six-hr total exposures (180:60:60:60).