Quote:

---

Abell12 1/30/2008 00:15UT; Pickering 9, NELM 6, SQM 20.8
16" SCT

Unfiltered at 260x the PN is lost in the star's glare. However, if you move the star around the in a circle just outside the field-stop, an egg-shaped section of the glare remains when the star is off the ESE edge.

PN easy in averted, and sometimes direct vision with aggressive filtration (OIII). No structure in PN, but it does have somewhat of an egg shape.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

As a quicky, rough example, here's sort of what I meant. I'm not very good at this at all.

---

Erika

I think you are better than you realize. You have rendered a very realistic star image with halo.

I believe we can all learn Photoshop techniques with some practice but for me, getting the chalk on my hands and using old classic techniques seem to make for a greater challenge.

I have used Photoshop but only to save and store the art. I tried to add sometimes with Photoshop enhancement as Jeff did here but later chose to stay in the old medium of art as some people still ask me if my sketches are all hand sketched only. As you mentioned earlier in another post, you said that you used to clean up your chalk smears in Photoshop but then you said that you stopped doing that. Can you elaborate on that and tell us why? I think there is something about an artists work showing what some might consider as little errors. That is what did it for me when I saw your solar prominence sketch on Oct 12th 2006 in Spaceweather.com [If I haven't told this enough ] That is why I started seriously sketching and why I am here in CN today.

Thanks for any further info. I commend you and Jeff for starting a great tutorial here for new sketches to consider old classic rendering vs Photoshop and/or combinations of mediums.

Mark

Post Extras: