Re: [APML] OT: Sh2-170 - was 13.5 hours of Tricolor

["Stuart Heggie" <Stuart.J.Heggie@sympatico.ca>]

John, I agree with you about seeing the stars.

Richard, I wonder if, with your processing skills, you could layer in a
relatively short exposure RGB that just gets the stars? Maybe you said that
was the plan, sounds familiar now that I type this... Gettin' old.

Stuart
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "spampit" <spampit@shaw.ca>
To: "'Discussion of Film Astrophotography'" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: [APML] OT: Sh2-170 - was 13.5 hours of Tricolor


> Richard,
> I understand why you have odd looking stars. For the skies that you
> have access to, you pull some amazing images out of the sky! Pink stars is
a
> small price to pay. :-) Eliminate stars altogether? That would make for
> strange looking astrophotos indeed! I had this conversation with a few
> friends over email a couple of days ago. My feelings are that an
astrophoto
> without stars is like a cat without hair! While some people may like
> hairless cats, I can't get comfortable with them. Likewise I need stars in
> my astrophotos! While I may not pursue this myself I would like to see the
> results, as I am sure others on this list would.
>
> John Mirtle
> Calgary, Ab. Canada
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-photo-bounces@seds.org [mailto:astro-photo-bounces@seds.org]
On
> Behalf Of Richard Crisp
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 7:20 PM
> To: Discussion of Film Astrophotography
> Subject: Re: [APML] OT: Sh2-170 - was 13.5 hours of Tricolor
>
> thanks for saving me the effort of cracking open the Millennium Star
Atlas.
> I was planning to do that later today after shooting my flats and
> reprocessing this pile of data.
>
> regarding the pink stars, i am giving some thought to getting the
continuum
> filters so i can eliminate the stars altogether from the images, leaving
> behind the stuff that interests me: the nebulosity. but it is more shots
to
> take, more flat fields to process etc.
>
> that's what the "pros" do: they completely eliminate the stars from the
> images so they aren't distracted by them.
>
> narrowband is about nebulosity and the structure thereof. rgb is about
that
> and star shape and color. rgb is too demanding for my imaging patterns: i
> don't have the dark skies to do it, don't have the time to drive to them,
> don't have the time or resources to set up a dark sky site and it is too
> confining to me to have to attain "proper star color". I like narrowband
> because i get to write my own book, "do it my way": Just like old blue
eyes
> Frank....
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo