NGC 2359 Thor's Helmet (Again)


#1

One of my favourite targets - had another go with a new scope (bought last year but just getting up & running in earnest now).

Full info on the web page link;


#2

That is a great looking image Kinch. The only thing I would do is boost the saturation a bit. Congrats.


#3

Thanks for the comment. Actually, this morning, I WAS playing around with the colour saturation, and was OK with the change…just never got to update the web page…but I may do.

Kinch.

Now done on the top image - most evident in the high resolution. However, as ever, I am quite conservative with adding colour… :slight_smile:


#4

I’m envious. It is a bit too low in the sky for my latitude. How do you find the Tak130? I have been toying with the idea of getting one but rarely see images taken with it. Do you use the stock focuser?


#5

Hi Buzz,
Thor’s Helmet gets up to about 38° here - not bad but at that altitude the window is not huge. Anyway - bottom line …it is available :slight_smile:

Re the 130 - I am still using a very small Sony chip with it so the light cone is magic on that chip…but a waste of resources at the same time. Later in the year I will have a bigger chip for it but will not go the full hog, so to speak. Looking at a 16200 rather than a 16803 chip. That will allow me to continue using my Extender & Reducer (that work well also with the FSQ 106). Those accessories fit either scope.

As for the focuser - I just moved the RoboFocus over from the 106 to the 130 and all is good. The RoboFocus handles the 5" focuser of the 130 without problem and SGP just does the usual.

I have not done so much to date with the 130 - the two images on the website for this year show the scope at f/8 (FL1040) and at the native f/5. I hope soon to try it at f/3.6 with the reducer.

So far…I love the scope as it is proving to be very versatile for me and is small enough at the same time, for sitting pretty in a 2.2m dome.

Kinch.


#6

Lovely image!! Thanks for sharing.


#7

Thanks Stephan.

I wish I knew how to make my images look good on all screens - it looks fine on the desktop (working home computer) but completely different (and worse) on a laptop. I think very good images look good on any screen…so I have a lot to learn yet :slight_smile:

Kinch


#8

I have the same issue. My images look less vibrant on the forum. At one time, they were really awful, but then I remembered that my TIFF images out of PixInsight were in the Adobe 1998 profile and few browsers care about color profiles. Converting them to 8-bit JPEGs with sRGB profile improved things greatly as this is often the default for many systems.


#9

@buzz Thanks for those words of wisdom (experience :face_with_monocle:). I will certainly give that a try…because it is so frustrating to work on one monitor - feel good - and then get kicked in the guts looking at the image on a different monitor. :grimacing:


#10

Thanks for the tip!
I wonder which profile works best for prints?


#11

If I’m sending away, unless the company says otherwise, I use sRGB. For my wide format Epson, I currently use Adobe1998 but I am looking at ProPhoto as an alternative, if the color gamut of the printer can make use of it.


#12

Great image Brendan :+1::clap:


#13

Thanks Barry…(now I know that you have a good monitor :laughing:)


#14

Problem is that monitors have to be calibrated with equipment like spyder or one eye. I use these, but for prints the printer needs to be calibrated also. The expense and ink used for the process is just too much for the average imager. In most cases, failure will result and many just send in their images to professional printers.

I use adobe 1998 with my epson printer. I calibrate my monitor and not the printer, and what I found is that it is better to put your money into a really good monitor like a nec pa 271 or eizo. Then use the print to adjust the monitor to what you are seeing on the print. It will probably look awful at first, but once the two match you can then adjust the image to your liking on the monitor with ps/pi. This has saved me a lot of time and money for ink, paper, ect that you will use for calibrating a printer.


#15

Thanks for the input. I really need to check my own home monitor…where I finish all the images.

Kinch


#16

I have an Epson 3880 A2+ Photo inkjet and use Canson paper. I started off using the canned profiles and later, a friend with a Gretag system, created some profiles for me (it only required a few sheets of A4). I have to say, although the dedicated profiles are very good, the canned profiles were very close too. The key difference, and one of some significance to astrophotographers, is that reflective prints will always ‘look’ flatter than on a monitor. I always check my darkest tones are no more than 95%K and if I am really concerned, say with a print with the IFN in it, I will do the mildest gamma boost to lift the darker tones.


www.mainsequencesoftware.com