Hi David, No, no Photoshop for me. What little processing I do I do in the software used to take the images (CCDSoft). And Joe was right, it really is M-81 (that's what I get posting something so close to bedtime...) patrick On 24 Mar 2010, at 10:12, David Rankin wrote:

Patrick,

Are you processing in photoshop?

David

Tyler: What's a good resource to learn how to process images and especially astro images in Photoshop? I recently picked up CS4. Thanks for the help. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Tyler Allred Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:47 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 Patrick, I agree that the focus looks good, and you picked up some nice detail in the arms. The core only looks blown out because you keep letting your software decide how to stretch the data. If you recall, I have chastised you several times for this offense :) For whatever reason, the default display options in MaxIm and CCDSoft try to stretch the data to let you see what is there in the raw fits file, but they do a terrible job for actual image processing. I can assure you that your 30 second fits files are nearly pure black and need to be stretched before you can really see anything. The software just decides how much to stretch based on some set formula. It usually chooses to clip on both ends, making things pure black and pure white that weren't that way in the original image. Check your software to see what stretch it is applying. I am sure that you have loads of detail in the core, but the software is driving instead of the software operator. :) Remember... Friends don't let friends clip their excellent data. And, software should never drive! Cheers, Tyler -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.co m] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:03 AM To: utah astronomy utah astronomy listserve Subject: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 I was between data taking projects tonight so I refocused the scope for the warmer temps that may finally be arriving. Once finished I shot five 30" test images of M-82 and stacked them. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/M82.JPG I'm satisfied with the focus and I like the spiral arms and the detail near the core but wish I knew how to keep the core itself from burning out. patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Thanks Tyler: I've dabbled with CS2 and to a lesser degree CS3 so I'm not starting from scratch but I wouldn't call myself experienced with PS either. I've spent some time in Lightroom and other editing programs so I'm not a novice but I haven't used Photoshop a ton or for astro images and haven't found anything so far that I was happy with. I will use PS mostly for conventional photos but I plan on doing more sstro photos this year and have bunch I'd like to re-process. PS seems to have the best tool set overall so I'm going to get serious with it. I'll check out your suggestions and hopefully I can tap your insight again. Thanks. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Tyler Allred Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:09 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 Bob, I don't know of anything that is specifically targeted at astro-image processing in CS4, but there are several good resources for Photoshop in general. When I was learning Photoshop, I found a set of tutorials that were produced by a guy named Warren Keller to be very helpful. His website is called IP4AP (Image Processing for Astrophotography). He offers a basic set of Photoshop tutorials that can be purchased and viewed online for a very reasonable price (IMHO). They are a bit "cheesy" but provide a nice overview of Photoshop and how to use it for processing astro-images. He has a "basic" series, which is just that... basic. You may not need it if you are already familiar with the Photoshop interface and tools, however, I found it useful anyway. He also has a couple of intermediate series, which get into more details of actually processing images. I think there are some free tutorials that you can watch to get a feel for the product. Warren is legitimate, so you can forget about spam issues etc. He also sells DVD's of the tutorials through Adirondack, Oceanside (OPT), and High Point Scientific. I have found the online versions to work very well. He sends a link that allows you to go back and watch them as often as needed. Go to this link if you are interested: www.ip4ap.com I can suggest other more advanced tutorials if you are already pretty competent with Photoshop. Let me know. Thanks, Tyler -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Robert Taylor Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:53 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 Tyler: What's a good resource to learn how to process images and especially astro images in Photoshop? I recently picked up CS4. Thanks for the help. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Tyler Allred Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:47 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 Patrick, I agree that the focus looks good, and you picked up some nice detail in the arms. The core only looks blown out because you keep letting your software decide how to stretch the data. If you recall, I have chastised you several times for this offense :) For whatever reason, the default display options in MaxIm and CCDSoft try to stretch the data to let you see what is there in the raw fits file, but they do a terrible job for actual image processing. I can assure you that your 30 second fits files are nearly pure black and need to be stretched before you can really see anything. The software just decides how much to stretch based on some set formula. It usually chooses to clip on both ends, making things pure black and pure white that weren't that way in the original image. Check your software to see what stretch it is applying. I am sure that you have loads of detail in the core, but the software is driving instead of the software operator. :) Remember... Friends don't let friends clip their excellent data. And, software should never drive! Cheers, Tyler -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.co m] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:03 AM To: utah astronomy utah astronomy listserve Subject: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 I was between data taking projects tonight so I refocused the scope for the warmer temps that may finally be arriving. Once finished I shot five 30" test images of M-82 and stacked them. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/M82.JPG I'm satisfied with the focus and I like the spiral arms and the detail near the core but wish I knew how to keep the core itself from burning out. patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Patrick, I always apply calibration frames first... then align and stack... then stretch. There are many ways to clip the data during processing. If you stretch the frames and then add them together (as 16-bit depth individual frames), and then save the result as a 16-bit image, you will likely have added enough bright areas to exceed the white value of the 16-bit depth. However, if you always save your manipulated data as floating depth (IEEE Float), then you will never clip as a result of inadequate bit depth. Just pay attention at every step to make sure you are not forcing your hard-earned data to be black or white if it isn't black or white in the frames. My guess is that you will do better with fewer frames of longer duration. That is generally true as long as you are not saturating too many stars in the image or other areas of interest. Remember that the camera has a fixed noise level that is independent of the exposure length (bias) as well as noise from the exposure length (darks). The more separation you can get between the noise and the signal, the better off you will be and the smoother your image will be. I hope that makes sense. Cheers, Tyler -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:21 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 Hi Tyler, On 24 Mar 2010, at 10:46, Tyler Allred wrote:

Patrick, I agree that the focus looks good, and you picked up some nice detail in the arms. The core only looks blown out because you keep letting your software decide how to stretch the data. If you recall, I have chastised you several times for this offense :)

Yep, and I still have the welts to prove it. :) Actually I stretched the heck out of each image and, as you suspected, the resultant images were very dark. But when I stacked the dark images the final product was still burned out in the core. I'm guessing part of the problem is that with only 2.5 minutes of data there's not much there to work with (remember I shot the pictures just to check focus). A few questions: 1) Do you stretch the individual images or only the image you end up with after stacking? 2) And, for that matter, do you stretch before applying the flat and dark? 3) Would I be better off shooting say 20 one minute exposures or 40 thirty second exposures? 4) Maybe one of these days you can do an imaging session at a SPOC star party? Cheers, patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

On 25 Mar 2010, at 03:25, Patrick Wiggins wrote:

One other challenge is the corrector plate. I've not cleaned it since last spring and it shows. Guess I'll bring the OTA inside and pull the corrector and give it a good washing (now let's see, where did I put the Brillo pads... <g>).

Couldn't find the Brillo pads so settled for a hot tub and a bottle of 190 proof firewater. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/SPLISHSPLASH.JPG I'm sure it'll look better in the morning... :) patrick

"She is looking better with every beer" ? Patrick, Usually the pretty thing in the hot tub looks worse in the

morning! (Not that I'd know.) Seriously, let me know how it comes out. If it's still streaked I have a good formula for cleaning correctors that I can email you. -- jb

________________________________ From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 2:35:00 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 (190 proof)

On 25 Mar 2010, at 03:25, Patrick Wiggins wrote:

...

One other challenge is the corrector plate. I've not cleaned it since last spring and it shows. Guess I'll bring the OTA inside and pull the corrector and give it a good washing (now let's see, where did I put the Brillo pads... <g>).

Couldn't find the Brillo pads so settled for a hot tub and a bottle of 190 proof firewater.

http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/SPLISHSPLASH.JPG

I'm sure it'll look better in the morning... :)

patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Hi Patrick and other UA friends. This is the method I was advised to use in cleaning my corrector plate -- info posted by the Arkansas Sky Observatory. I'm enclosing it as a Word document attachment; if anyone who's interested is unable to open the document I'll be glad to pass it along in message form. I'm not using that form now because the document is fairly lengthy. I've bought the gear for this process except for what the directions call "synthetic cotton replacement pads." I gather I can use unscented pure white Kleenix instead but I would like to know what the pads are and where to obtain them. Does anyone know? Thanks, Joe

The document Joe referred to is attached. patrick On 26 Mar 2010, at 15:44, Joe Bauman wrote:

Hi Patrick and other UA friends. This is the method I was advised to use in cleaning my corrector plate -- info posted by the Arkansas Sky Observatory. I'm enclosing it as a Word document attachment; if anyone who's interested is unable to open the document I'll be glad to pass it along in message form. I'm not using that form now because the document is fairly lengthy.

I've bought the gear for this process except for what the directions call "synthetic cotton replacement pads." I gather I can use unscented pure white Kleenix instead but I would like to know what the pads are and where to obtain them. Does anyone know?

Thanks, Joe

PREFACE: There are many, many variations of high precision, high reflectivity and high transmission coatings presently offered on the market for both amateur and professional scientists who use OPTICS in their respective lines of study. Smaller glass surfaces with high transmission coatings have always been seemingly easy to clean, since the smaller surface area is not as prone to spotting, sleeking and streaking of the cleaner used. On the other hand, large optical surfaces such as telescope lenses, corrector plates and optical glass "windows" are very difficult to properly clean without some residue being left behind as a result of cleaning. The ARKANSAS SKY OBSERVATORY's new protocol for cleaning optical surfaces includes: 1) judging carefully when cleaning is actually necessary; 2) preparation of the optical surface for proper cleaning; 3) a new solution that combines the attributes of all previous formulae and results in very fast, easy, and streak-free results if used properly; 4) the proper new technique that is highly recommended for cleaning. WHEN TO CLEAN OPTICS: Although we are attempting to obtain the best possible light transmission efficiency from our optics by cleaning them free of deposits, film and debris, lock firmly in your memory that cleaning coated optical surfaces is the single-most damaging action that will be done to them, short of actual physical damage or breakage. No matter how careful, how delicate, nor what cleaning solution is used.....every time cleaned will result in a microscopically-reduced optical performance than before cleaning. Note that the coatings themselves - regardless who makes them and from what they are made - are nothing more than molecule-thick deposits of a very delicate film left on the optical surface from a vacuum process in which air is evacuated and the gases of the coating materials are gently and uniformly distributed across the glass surface after the vacuum container is void of air. This system is devoted to the cleaning of large astronomical refractive optics: lens, corrector, and other optical glass; however the techniques discussed here as well as the new ASO SuperPlus Solution is excellent for the cleaning of eyepieces, eyeglasses, binoculars, camera lenses and all other fine coated optical surface. So....the ground rule here is: CLEAN ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. In most cases, dusting alone will lead to tremendous improvement in performance and overall light transmission. PREPARATION TO CLEANING DUSTING OPTICAL SURFACES: Large area optical surfaces are frequently plagued by DUST, POLLEN, GRIT, DEBRIS and even human skin and airborne hair. If the surface of the glass is allowed to be exposed at a temperature BELOW THE DEWPOINT, these particulates will stick to the glass and will be stubborn to remove. However, for optimum performance, it is essential to, indeed, remove debris from the optical surface. Your optical glass MUST be dusted when: 1) a flashlight held obliquely against the glass reveals a uniform and fairly thick layer of dust, etc; 2) when POLLEN is on the glass, as leaving pollen will result in "pollen sap" leaving a very difficult-to-remove stain on the surface; 3) ALWAYS prior to cleaning the glass with the solution and technique which follows. Never clean optical glass without gently dusting first! You will find in 3 out of 5 cases that merely dusting off the glass is sufficient to greatly enhance your performance back to optimum and that further physical cleaning is NOT necessary after dust removal. There can be a lot of smudges, stains, flecks and streaks on the glass before it actually begins to degrade your optical performance for all but the most exacting (i.e., high resolution planetary imaging, CCD spectrography and photometry, etc.) demands put upon your telescope. To dust, use a SQUARE-CUT (not a tip-cut) very soft brush that is about 2" (50mm) wide with tapered bristles. I have found several excellent such brushes at Lowe's and Home Depot and other stores where quality painting supplies are sold. Look for the very soft and flexible "touch up" and/or "delicate trim" brushes....most of these are short-handled and have the bristles as an angled radius cut. Make sure that the bristles are incredibly soft; I use the "cheek method" for testing softness: take the brush out of its package and push the tiny ends of the bristles hard against the cheek of your face....if they do not "prick" then they are fine for optical use. Another tip on selecting a brush is the number of bristles....the MORE bristles on brushes just described, usually the softer and better the quality. I start dusting by dusting the METAL SURFACES that surround the optics, ridding them of all debris first; just whisk away. Then start at the top of your glass and gently swipe the surface IN ONE DIRECTION....do NOT move back-and-forth with the brush. Stroke in only one direction. Do NOT rub....merely "pull" the brush across the surface and apply no pressure; let the brush do the work for your. Any particles that do not come off with such brush will be removed in subsequent cleaning with liquid if necessary. The object of your dusting is to essential "move" all the particles to the bottom of the surface you are working on...once there you can brush them off the area and actually assist their removal by blowing gently against the areas being brushed. USING COMPRESSED AIR: DON'T. Period. Dusting is easy, although it may take a little more time, and it is more effective. I have found that compressed air is virtually worthless for attempting to gently remove embedded particles on a glass surface and the chances of the liquid propellants within the can being expelled in liquid droplets against the glass is quite great. The ASO SuperPlus Optical Cleaning Solution - how to mix it yourself! There is NOTHING magic about the new concoction developed over a period of about five weeks here at the Arkansas Sky Observatory. SuperPlus Solution is quite simple, and indeed, there are many familiar components that are being used that have been touted in cleaning solutions before. Nonetheless, after hundreds of elixirs and hours later, this combination - in exactly the proportions given below - results in near-perfect results every time! In striving for the "perfect cleaner" the following criteria were evaluated: 1) Streaking - the solution was required to dry streak free with minimal "dry rubbing" which can damage optical surfaces; 2) Spotting - the solution must dry spot-free with minimal rubbing; 3) Safety - the solution was required in all respects to be totally impervious to the optical coatings and totally safe for all variations of them on the market; 4) Simplicity - it needed to be something that anyone could mix up when needed with over-the-counter inexpensive components; 5) Sure-fire - it must work every time the first time....the less rubbing the better. Experiments on all types of optical glass surfaces were conducted with EVERY cleaner offered by all makers and groups; the following SuperPlus Solution was derived as the "best of all of them" since all had some attributes that were worthy, with some extreme cases omitted. Interestingly although some of the solutions that have been previously offered were deemed very hazardous to the quality of cleaning and even the surfaces themselves, some components used within those solutions did HAVE MERIT and have been incorporated! You will be surprised perhaps at the simplicity of this. HERE IS WHAT YOU WILL NEED: Nearly all components should be available locally; suggested outlets for obtaining these are in parenthesis. 1) distilled water (supermarkets) 2) "pure" isopropyl alcohol (pharmacies, drug stores....may have to be ordered) 3) coffee filters 4) "regular" Windex, the blue kind (supermarket) 5) Kodak PhotoFlo solution (camera and photo houses only) 6) Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pads (some finer pharmacies, medical supply companies....ask your local M.D.!!) 7) two "atomizers" or simple squirt bottles for dispensing liquids (Wal Mart or similar) 8) box of KLEENEX [only!] pure white, no additives tissue (supermarket) 9) quart mixing jars, very clean and sterile (try your cabinets!) 10) sterile eye dropper (drug store). NOTES ABOUT THE INGREDIENTS: What an how you combine these components, as well as HOW you use them will make or break your success in streak-free and perfect cleaning; please make note of the following: Pure Isopropyl Alcohol - NEVER use "regular" isopropyl alcohol. Isopropyl is what you commonly see in stores as "Rubbing Alcohol." However, most on-the-shelf varieties is about 70% or less pure....the remaining 30% is impurities which WILL result in streaking and deposits on your glass. USE ONLY 91% OR HIGHER proof isopropyl....this is found on the same shelf typically, in very large and well-stocked pharmacies. If not, simply ask your pharmacist to order some! Expect to pay about double the price of the "store brand." Windex - Many cleaning formulae suggest Windex, indeed from one of the largest optical houses in the world. However, there has always been "something wrong" with Windex in that it leaves a ghostly film on optics. After much experimentation, I have found that it is the heavy impurities that are SUSPENDED in the solution that are responsible for the fog....you CAN get them out as you will see. NOTE that ONLY the blue Windex should be used. NEVER use any cleaner with vinegar on your optics. Kodak Photo-Flo - If you have never used this before NOTE!!! This is extremely concentrated stuff and a tiny, tiny bit goes a very long way! We are talking DROPPER amounts here....NOT ounces. DO NOT USE MORE THAN RECOMMENDED....your results will be horrible. Kleenex - ONLY USE pure white Kleenex, no other brands at all. Do not select Kleenex with "ultra softeners" or with scented oils. Only plain and simple pure white. HERE IS HOW TO MIX ALL THIS STUFF: You are making TWO solutions: 1) Solution 1 - Cleaning Solution: This is the active part of the cleaning and should be mixed very precisely in the quantities provided. 2) Solution 2 - Rinse Solution: This is ABSOLUTELY necessary for most cleaning session; however, you MAY find that you do NOT NEED the final solution if your optics dry streak-free (which likely they will!). SOLUTION ONE: Cleaning Solution. You are going to have much more solution of each component than need for one quart of final SuperPlus Cleaning Solution. Keep all left-over unused and unmixed components well sealed and marked for future use. Step 1: FILTER THE WINDEX VIA THE COFFEE FILTER into a thoroughly washed and dried container; go ahead and filter the entire bottle as this is much simpler and more effective than attempting to filter one ounce. Step 2: FILTER THE DISTILLED WATER using a second clean coffee filter into another jar. Yes, I know that distilled water is supposedly inclusion free, but trust me on this one. Step 3: MIX...... In another quart jar, add the following (do NOT substitute nor change amounts!) a) the filtered and purified WINDEX - 1 ounce b) ALCOHOL - 1.5 ounce c) PHOTO-FLO - two drops...that's RIGHT, I said "two drops"....any more and you will be sorry. And I mean SMALL drops!! (about 1/16th ounce is pushing the limit) Step 4: MIX together gently but do NOT shake. Step 5: ADD 12 OUNCES OF Distilled water. I chose to mix my solution in empty quart plastic alcohol bottles; if doing so, merely fill the bottle to within 1" of the top. Step 6: Pour liquid into your MARKED squirt bottle for use. SOLUTION TWO: Rinse Solution. In 12 ounces of filtered distilled water add TWO drops (only!!) of Photo-Flo solution. No more no less. Transfer liquid into SECOND MARKED squirt bottle. You are now ready to CLEAN your optics. The ASO SuperPlus Cleaning Technique - You CAN do it right! The FIRST time! **tip #1** CLEAN OPTICS ONLY IN THE DAYTIME WITH THE OPTICAL SURFACE "LOOKING" OUT OF A WINDOW OR TOWARD A BRIGHT OPEN SKY **tip #2** NEVER....NEVER...ATTEMPT TO SURFACE CLEAN LARGE OPTICS WHEN THE HUMIDITY IS ABOVE 65% !! Streaking will result. If you attempt to clean your optics when the humidity is high, you will be very disappointed in the results. **tip #3** PLAN TO USE AT LEAST ONE TISSUE PER INCH APERTURE BEING CLEANED....ALWAYS keep a dry tissue to the surface for best results! There is no solution that will result in satisfactory cleaning if your technique is NOT good when cleaning. Unfortunately with cleaning large glass surfaces, you must normally move quickly, but gently in order to obtain a streak-free and spot-free result. If you follow this technique, you can move a bit more slowly and deliberately AND achieve the same results. ** MAKE SURE YOU HAVE DUSTED OFF THE PARTICLES FROM THE GLASS PRIOR TO FURTHER CLEANING! (see above) ** STEP ONE - Turn your telescope so that you are FACING the corrector plate or lens head-on; you are NOT going to use so much liquid that you need to be worried about cleaning solution getting away from you and down inside the retaining rings of the optics. Make yourself comfortable....you may be here a while! I prefer placing the telescope if possible in a position where I can sit down to clean. You must have a small table or area within reach where you will have your Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pads, solutions and Kleenex waiting. STEP TWO - Imagine your corrector plate or lens in QUADRANTS or quarters, like large sections of pie. You are going to begin at the TOP left and work your way down to the BOTTOM left piece of pie. STEP THREE - Gently shake the container (Solution ONE - Cleaner) for just a brief moment and spray a generous amount of liquid onto the Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pad, NOT the glass surface. You want the Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pad WET, but not dripping; make sure you hold the pad only on ONE side and do not TURN to use the side where your fingers have been. STEP FOUR - Begin in your upper left "quadrant" and gently daub (do NOT rub) this section until you have generously smeared the cleaning solution across the surface of ONLY that area. Never "push" the Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pad, only pull. Do NOT rub. The idea here is to ONLY move the liquid across the surface to break the adhesion of film and dirt deposits against the glass. MOVE QUICKLY TO STEP 5..... STEP FIVE - Before the liquid begins to collect into large areas and before any drying takes place, immediately begin wiping the quadrant just soaked with KLEENEX tissue to dry it....to do this, you want to gently PULL the Kleenex across the surface in ONE DIRECTION ONLY...do NOT go back and forth as this will streak and will tear the tissue into endless amounts of clumps that will have to be removed from the surface. You will see the liquid rapidly drying behind you. Follow each swipe IMMEDIATELY with a DRY Kleenex tissue. [reminder: keep changing to a dry tissue constantly!!] STEP SIX - When entire quadrant is reasonably dry, buff gently with a totally dry Kleenex; repeat a second time with another Kleenex while gently "puffing" a bit of your breath against the corrector plate or lens to expose possible areas of streaking. [reminder: keep changing to a dry tissue constantly!!] STEP SEVEN - Repeat same procedure on remaining three quadrants with a bit of overlap on each. [reminder: keep changing to a dry tissue constantly!!] STEP EIGHT - Check each point where areas overlapped during cleaning and "touch up" using a fresh Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pad sprayed with a VERY SMALL amount of cleaner....you want this swab nearly dry, but just enough moisture to touch up defects in cleaning. STEP NINE - Using your breath as a guide, gently "puff' against the glass while using a Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pad to buff the final cleaned surface to a high luster with not streaking! STEP TEN - [[OPTIONAL]] - USING THE RINSE SOLUTION This step is likely NOT necessary and should ONLY be used if there is any streaking left after the careful cleaning procedure outlined above. If there are problem areas, you should rinse your cleaned corrector/lens as follows: - spray a VERY SMALL amount of rinse solution onto the glass OR place some on a fresh Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pad.....you want only a tiny amount of liquid present to break the surface tension of the glass....remember, the glass is already cleaned from the CLEANING PROCEDURE. All you are attempting to do is to remove any streaks at this point. - gently rub the Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pad across the entire glass area quickly but very lightly and follow WITH YOUR OTHER HAND a fresh dry Kleenex tissue to absorb any moisture remaining from the first pass. This should take care of streaking very quickly. - again, buff the entire surface with a fresh and dry Synthetic Cotton Replacement Pad to finish. ------------------ Best of luck and take your time.....this solution and technique will work on all coated glass surfaces (NOT MIRRORS) and the solution is ideal as well for your binocular, eyepieces and camera lenses. The key to success is: 1) take your time; 2) work in small areas; 3) use LOTS of dry Kleenex; and, 4) use ONLY the materials and techniques described.

Patrick, These images are very interesting. The stacked frames look good, however, I don't think the center should be blown out on any of these images. Also, the 1 hour image is more blown out than the others, which should not happen. Can you send me the raw fits files (not calibrated), or provide a link to a zip file etc.? I would like to take a run at processing them to preserve the central portion of the galaxy. I am certain that your software is stretching and clipping in your process somewhere, without you knowing it. I have a few questions: Are you adding the frames when you combine? Averaging? Sigma? What type of combine are you using? I suspect you might be adding and exceeding the range of a 16-bit image. Cheers, Tyler -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:27 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M-81 On 25 Mar 2010, at 03:25, Patrick Wiggins wrote:

Hi Tyler,

On 24 Mar 2010, at 22:53, Tyler Allred wrote:

...

My guess is that you will do better with fewer frames of longer duration.

And to that end I took advantage of tonight's cloudy skies and shot a whole slew of 60" and 120" darks which I made into master 60" and 120" darks. Next clear night I'll do a bit of experimenting and shoot 10 120", 20 60" and 40 30" guided shots of M-82 and see which set nets the best image. Hey, and then I can stack them all together for a total of 1 hour exposure time.

Though the sky was a bit hazy and very mooney tonight I ran the test. The results are in a ZIP file located here: http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/M81.ZIP The file contains 4 FITS files, one a compilation of 40 30" exposures, one 20 60", one 10 120" and one is a compilation of everything (1 hour total time). The posted files are what I got when I reduced the raw images with flats and darks (I even first applied darks to the flats) and then stacked them. Aligning was not needed as I guided the whole hour. However, I did not do any stretching so as to give anyone interested a chance to play with the images. I can also supply all of the original files if anyone wants to experiment/practice with those. patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Tyler's done it again. Using my 120" M-81 data Tyler waved his magic want and got: http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/M81-120BYTYLER.JPG His wand must contain a phoenix feather... patrick

<Joe Bauman said... <Magnificent, Patrick! In response to your question, you need to mask and burn etc., to show the core details as well as the faint arms. But <in a way that's cheating. It's like a photo at night with a car's bright headlights shining at the photographer: you can print the negative <to show the general scene, people on the sidewalk, with washed-out blazing headlights or you can darken the whole scene and show the <headlights as sharp round orbs and the people hardly visible. But to show both you have to manipulate the image, "burning in" the headlights <with the enlarger or PhotoShop. That results in an unnatural view of the scene. You shouldn't have it both ways. I feel somewhat the same way <about manipulating astrophotos. The center is magnitudes brighter than the arms and a photo that in effect dims the center isn't a true <report. -- Joe Hello all. Joe brings up an interesting question, and I want to respond to this issue of whether or not it offers a "true report" if an image is stretched to show the full range of detail. The issue of stretching astronomical images often comes up and I hear the so-called purists argument that you shouldn't manipulate the data because it is somehow "cheating". I will try to debunk that argument now. Let me start by asking a question... Question: Why do scientists present data on non-linear plots (such as log-scale plots, probability plots, pie charts, etc.)? Answer... Because the real data often covers a range that is too wide to see and evaluate without manipulating the presentation of the data. So, is it "cheating" to show data on a log-scale or probability plot? Or for that matter, to plot log-transformed data? I think the answer you would get from scientists is universally a resounding "no". Is the presentation of data in astrophotos really any different? I think not. If you present the data without stretching, then real data is not even visible. That data represents real structures within an object. Is it a true report to allow real structures to remain unseen, simply because the range of data is too large to represent on a linear scale? Again, I think the answer is a resounding "no". I normally process my images by applying a log-log stretch to the linear data. That means that any value in the mostly linear representation of the data (directly off the chip) has a mathematical transformation applied that allows the full range of values to be better represented in the image. I rarely use the burn tool to alter my images. In fact, I do very little individual pixel manipulation, and most of what I do is removal of defects from hot pixels and dead pixels on the CCD, which I would not characterize as cheating. In my image processing, I try to show the variability in the actual data, and to accentuate the subtle details that allow the true structure of the object to be seen clearly by the viewer. I don't consider that to be cheating. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite... as revealing the true character and structure of the object. I thought I would offer these thoughts for anyone who is interested. Cheers, Tyler PS - Don't worry Joe... I am not upset, but rather I appreciated the chance to discuss this issue. :) ________________________________ From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy utah astronomy listserve <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 4:02:38 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 I was between data taking projects tonight so I refocused the scope for the warmer temps that may finally be arriving. Once finished I shot five 30" test images of M-82 and stacked them. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/M82.JPG I'm satisfied with the focus and I like the spiral arms and the detail near the core but wish I knew how to keep the core itself from burning out. patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Tyler has a really great point here and I don't think it is cheating to stretch the image to bring out details. I have sort of ambivalent feelings about it. It's a good thing to bring out aspects of galaxies, for example, that truly are present. But it gives a distorted view, a scene that is not visible in nature. A galaxy core that actually is many times brighter than the distant arms will not be relatively as bright in the stretched image. In that respect the image is not true to nature in all aspects -- it's something that bothers me. Maybe I'm too much a purist, but these are at least considerations to think about. I know Tyler is the master among us in astrophotography, and I appreciate his viewpoint. In fact, he's probably right. But I still have this nagging feeling. Thanks, Joe ________________________________ From: Tyler Allred <tylerallred@earthlink.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:16:16 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 <Joe Bauman said... <Magnificent, Patrick! In response to your question, you need to mask and burn etc., to show the core details as well as the faint arms. But <in a way that's cheating. It's like a photo at night with a car's bright headlights shining at the photographer: you can print the negative <to show the general scene, people on the sidewalk, with washed-out blazing headlights or you can darken the whole scene and show the <headlights as sharp round orbs and the people hardly visible. But to show both you have to manipulate the image, "burning in" the headlights <with the enlarger or PhotoShop. That results in an unnatural view of the scene. You shouldn't have it both ways. I feel somewhat the same way <about manipulating astrophotos. The center is magnitudes brighter than the arms and a photo that in effect dims the center isn't a true <report. -- Joe Hello all. Joe brings up an interesting question, and I want to respond to this issue of whether or not it offers a "true report" if an image is stretched to show the full range of detail. The issue of stretching astronomical images often comes up and I hear the so-called purists argument that you shouldn't manipulate the data because it is somehow "cheating". I will try to debunk that argument now. Let me start by asking a question... Question: Why do scientists present data on non-linear plots (such as log-scale plots, probability plots, pie charts, etc.)? Answer... Because the real data often covers a range that is too wide to see and evaluate without manipulating the presentation of the data. So, is it "cheating" to show data on a log-scale or probability plot? Or for that matter, to plot log-transformed data? I think the answer you would get from scientists is universally a resounding "no". Is the presentation of data in astrophotos really any different? I think not. If you present the data without stretching, then real data is not even visible. That data represents real structures within an object. Is it a true report to allow real structures to remain unseen, simply because the range of data is too large to represent on a linear scale? Again, I think the answer is a resounding "no". I normally process my images by applying a log-log stretch to the linear data. That means that any value in the mostly linear representation of the data (directly off the chip) has a mathematical transformation applied that allows the full range of values to be better represented in the image. I rarely use the burn tool to alter my images. In fact, I do very little individual pixel manipulation, and most of what I do is removal of defects from hot pixels and dead pixels on the CCD, which I would not characterize as cheating. In my image processing, I try to show the variability in the actual data, and to accentuate the subtle details that allow the true structure of the object to be seen clearly by the viewer. I don't consider that to be cheating. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite... as revealing the true character and structure of the object. I thought I would offer these thoughts for anyone who is interested. Cheers, Tyler PS - Don't worry Joe... I am not upset, but rather I appreciated the chance to discuss this issue. :) ________________________________ From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy utah astronomy listserve <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 4:02:38 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] M-82 I was between data taking projects tonight so I refocused the scope for the warmer temps that may finally be arriving. Once finished I shot five 30" test images of M-82 and stacked them. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/M82.JPG I'm satisfied with the focus and I like the spiral arms and the detail near the core but wish I knew how to keep the core itself from burning out. patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com