Re: [APML] Newest, M16/M17 and Antares Region

["Bobby Middleton" <bobm@koyote.com>]

Hi Daniel.

The color looks good on both shots. The m-16/m-17 shot seems sharper than the Antares shot. Any chance you were out of focus a bit on it? I can barely see the flexure you mention, but at only web res it will not be as obvious as a high res file. These will be great shots when you get these bugs fixed. The Fuji HQ100 did well. I presume it was hypered? 

Bobby Middleton

----- Original Message -----

From: Daniel Reyna

To: astro-photo@seds.org

Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:35 AM

Subject: [APML] Newest, M16/M17 and Antares Region

http://home.earthlink.net/~dreyna14/m16m17.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~dreyna14/antrs_rgn.htm

 

Hey all,

 

The first of my images from this weekend and was disappointed.  I got an entire roll of what I'm 99% sure is flexure.  My ST-4 was giving me A1's 95% of the time, the rest were A2's, and the trails are inclined about 15-20 degrees from a straight east-west direction.  At web resolution these images look decent.  The shot of M16 and M17 was fairly straightfoward but I had quite a bit of difficulty working with the shot of Antares and Rho Ohpiuchus as it required heavy processing to bring out the nebulosity and cut noise.  I don't like the star images in the lower portion of the image, they seem too blurred.  Ideas?  Any other comments are welcome.

 

Daniel