Bubble Nebula area

[Stefan B]

Here's the area around the Bubble Nebula in Cassiopeia:

Not a spectacular image but a nice region to look at. The FOV is kind of in between compared to the close ups the of the Bubble and the wide fields with the Lobster Claw. The broadband and duo NB data were combined via NBAccent. I also tried it with duo NB as luminance and the broadband as RGB but it just didn't look as smooth and nice. Although SVDecon worked much better and there were more details in the Bubble...

As I've written on Astrobin (https://www.astrobin.com/yi1jod/) the best part of imaging was looking at the milky way. Sadly I didn't have enough time to get out the Dobsonian since getting some sleep is kind of a priority these days...would have loved to peek at the double cluster for example. Maybe next time/year. Experience tells that imaging here will get difficult during the next three months due to fog. Hope you'll enjoy some clear skies!

Regards
Stefan

[fmeireso]

Hi Stefan,

I really like the colors. But imho a bit too much stars which dims the bubble. But again the colors are really great. I tried once the NBaccent module with the veil nebulea. Same trouble there, i just could not get the stars sufficient out. Using my Ha as luminance worked better in that case.

Fighting with the Ghost of Cassiopeia for the moment. I can't get enough detail via the NBaccent module but colors are quite good. Using L,RGB gives me the best image but colorwise it is less ok. Anyhow i noticed that 5:30 hr on HA is not enough for that object...Furthermore i cannot control the nearby star Navi.

The Bubble is really on my list too. Like the Ghost of Cassiopeia it is a intriguing object, very beautifull.

[Stefan B]

Hi Freddy,

thanks for your feedback, much appreciated!

But imho a bit too much stars which dims the bubble. But again the colors are really great. I tried once the NBaccent module with the veil nebulea. Same trouble there, i just could not get the stars sufficient out. Using my Ha as luminance worked better in that case.

Totally get what you mean. I know the problem, see my post in your ghost thread. But here it's been more of a deliberate decision. ST made a terrific job in Shrink I could have reduced the stars quite some more. But I liked the stars and their color and I enjoyed the translucent appearance of the nebula. These nebulae out there are actually quite thin and faint, right? Instead of solid objects that many of our pictures make them look like. Often they look just like walls of color. I have no problem with this kind of processing and I've done it myself a lot but I choose a different way here. I also could have emphasized the nebula more with the Saturate preset in SuperStructure but not this time

Regards
Stefan

[Mike in Rancho]

Nice!

I don't think there's anything to complaint about here. You've actually saturated pretty strongly, yet appropriately IMHO, to show the nebulas along with a cool little cluster and awesome star colors.

The stars also give the overall image a certain amount of "life," whereas excessive shrink/dimsmall (or goodness no, starless) seems to deaden things. To each their own I suppose.

In the current M31 I am working I just go straight to DN, no shrink or SS.

[Stefan B]

Thanks, Mike! 100% agreement on the stars giving life to an image I really enjoy looking at images with nice and natural star colors.

In terms of saturation of the nebula I should have been more precise and write that it's less saturated compared to my usual stuff. Using the Saturate preset in SuperStructure you'd get MUCH more saturation and I throttled it down more than usual.

In the current M31 I am working I just go straight to DN, no shrink or SS.

Working without Shrink or SuperStructure is totally unthinkable for me But I am looking forward to your result!

Regards
Stefan

[alacant]

(or goodness no, starless)

+1. Let's hope the starless fashion ends soon; so much good data being trashed!

Here is my starless m52:












Hope you liked it.
But seriously ...!
Clear skies,
Steve

[Mike in Rancho]

(or goodness no, starless)

+1. Let's hope the starless fashion ends soon; so much good data being trashed!

Here is my starless m52:












Hope you liked it.
But seriously ...!
Clear skies,
Steve

Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with it as artistic license and special circumstances. For example some folks take a ton of integration around Polaris to capture IFN, and then show a starless or nearly-starless image of it. I get that, as an interpolated estimation of what the IFN might look like without all the stars in the way. At least there's a logic to that display.

But elsewise, the proliferation of these plugins and stand-alone star removal programs has led to it often being used in the normal course of processing all images now. Stars are removed, replaced with interpolated data (or worse, AI data), processed separately, and then layered back on. Many times selectively, and they can look like they've been painted onto the image.

Alas, what can you do? Other than whine. That's what I do.