California Nebula and the gestation period of an elephant.

[Bob Andersson]

Hi folks,

This object has proved a good indicator of my processing skills. The last time I looked at this data was about 21 months ago (very roughly the gestation period of an elephant) and I think I've improved:

California Nebula (NGC 1499)

Click the image for a larger version and, if your browser supports it, select 'View Image' (right clicking on an image in Firefox offers this option) - worth doing as viewing against a darker background makes the shadow detail a lot easier to see. My previous effort with the same data was the subject of this thread. A bit embarrassing, really, as a lot of the faint stuff was missing because the background noise hadn't been well controlled but I offer the comparison as encouragement to keep honing those processing skills!

Bob.

Exp info: 8 x 1,000 second exposures through a Hydrogen-alpha filter plus 5 x 200 seconds through each of red, green and blue filters. See Signature below for hardware.

[popo]

Love it. This is the first time I've seen this subject and not thought "oh no, another boring red blob".

[Bob Andersson]

.
Thanks popo, much appreciated! At least I've had one positive reply. On the other forum absolutely nothing so far. Just as well I do this for my own pleasure.

Bob.

[cybermystic]

Rather like my work on this forum Bob - but I don't winge about it
Greg

[Bob Andersson]

Hi Greg,

That's a bit harsh but life here at CameraLabs is generally quiet these days so I guess we have to be grateful for whatever crumbs fall from the table.

I'm sure Gordon would echo my thanks to you as one of our long term and regular contributors for your continued support here at CameraLabs. Always interesting.

Bob.

[warth man]

Actually, I think the work that both of you produce, especially in this category, is stunning. I don't understand a lot of the language/physics used but it doesn't prevent me from being pretty gobsmacked by what you show on here. The pics posted by you guys really make one (me, anyway) question one's position in the great scheme, quite apart from being images of things unique and other-worldly. They are amazing, as I've said before, but I personally don't have the dedication to delve deeply into the subject. It's probably true that most of us are not qualified to offer the serious and knowledgeable opinion that you might perhaps find more rewarding. I hope that doesn't stop you both posting more. They are appreciated.

Bob is right though. It is quiet on the forum and I do hope that it finds new life soon. It would be especially welcome to me if folk would just start posting pics again. Of whatever!

[Bob Andersson]

.
Thanks. It's amazing what you can see from your back garden.

When I finish an image I spend time just looking at it and letting the imagination roam so it's great that by sharing others feel the same sense of wonder. Every point of light is a star and we now know that most stars have planets even if the arrangement is often different from our own solar system. It boggles my mind to think how many stars in an image may have life supporting planets (or moons of Jovian class planets) even if very very few actually support complex multi-cellular life.

Bob.

[4xxxx]

Although not my field, I always look at this section and I am amazed by the posting, I usually show my wife and as me, she also has admiration.

Cheers

[cybermystic]

Hi Bob,

I do appreciate your mature reply to my rather provocative comment
The lack of replies on a forum that is actually dedicated to deep-sky imaging can be pretty frustrating, especially when there are plenty of fawning comments forthcoming when a rather mediocre image is presented by certain (unnamed) people.
I have been on MUCH cliquier sites where they don't even acknowledge your existence, even though you are turning out better work than most of them put together.
It's a tough one.
What do you want in a reply? That it is a good image? Well we both know our images are good and if you are like me you don't actually need or want the confirmation. So how about comments on ways the image could be improved? Well that would be more useful to us both for sure, but does the average forumite know enough when we are at this level to tell us how best to improve? There are a few for sure, but not that many.
Then I look at people like Damian Peach, Rob Gendler and Steve Cannistra and note that they do not seem to frequent any forums. Why not? Maybe for the reasons I've written above, maybe something else.
I have thought about giving up on all forums for exactly these reasons and only putting my work on the New Forest Observatory site, just like the gents mentioned above do.
Perhaps 2015 will be the year I make the break - it probably will be.
If you continue on "the other place" good luck, but be prepared for a singular lack of interest, there's very little useful feedback to be got on there it seems

Greg

[Bob Andersson]

Hi Greg,

I agree. I've thought about re-purposing my own website as my software business has effectively been dead for a number of years. But the reason I like to post images on forums is that they are more likely to be found/viewed by a wider community. If I only posted on my own website and produced a new image every couple of weeks (optimistic given UK weather) how many would drop by on a regular basis given there would usually be nothing new? At least on a forum, whether specialised or more general such as here at CameraLabs, there is a better chance of something new to see and enjoy.

Even if I don't get replies I do look at the "Views" count and hope that some of those reflect a new-found spark of interest in astronomy. So keep posting - I'm probably as guilty as anyone when it comes to not replying...

Bob.

[cybermystic]

I have found that there is a lot more positive feedback to be had on Facebook (believe it or not) - rather than the Forums - this is where the big guns (like Rob Gendler) seem to hang out.
So I will probably drop the Forums and stick with Facebook.
Good luck with whatever you choose
Greg

P.S. The average daily hit on the NFO website is around 500 which ain't too bad.

[popo]

If anyone does make a facebook page please do say and I'll watch. Been half thinking about doing same myself but I'm not focused enough with new content to really be motivated... I agree with the analysis that having a personal website is unlikely to get as many views then if you used some form of social media or other sharing sites.

I still pop in here from time to time, but this forum is past its prime in terms of activity. The other forum, I do find it odd at times what does or doesn't get replied to. I only occasionally visit there too, and it isn't often I have much to offer either. But I do have a look even if I don't post.

[Maestro]

Apologies for the tangent, but how are people overcoming FB's odd handing of color profiles and max resolution of 2048 pixels per side?

Thanks - Mark

P.S. This is exactly why I don't usually reply to photos posted in this subforum:

What do you want in a reply? That it is a good image? Well we both know our images are good and if you are like me you don't actually need or want the confirmation. So how about comments on ways the image could be improved? Well that would be more useful to us both for sure, but does the average forumite know enough when we are at this level to tell us how best to improve? There are a few for sure, but not that many.