This was really tough to image. It's pretty low in the sky. I don't think it gets much above 50°, in fact, looking at it in the planetarium program, it hits 50° at its peak. I'm also imaging in heavy light pollution, and imaging north from south Houston, so the pollution is worse in the direction I image. Gradients from the two nights worth of imaging made it almost impossible to image. After the first night, I almost gave up and picked another target, but this is a pretty dim galaxy at mag 9.7, so I gave it a second night, and saw clear signal after stacking both days.

This is RGB only. I thought about adding luminance, but luminance for me is even worse when trying to correct gradients. So I did gradient removal on each channel separately then combined once everything had a mostly clean background. After that I went through my normal process. In general I've been unhappy with star color and this setup, but found RGB only kept the stars from being too washed out, and then applied saturation on top of that. Too much saturation and the CA starts to really show, so I tried to keep it in check a little bit. I also cropped it tighter, as the gradients near the edges were reflections off the inside of the scope and without flocking of some sort, I find it's much more difficult to remove. On narrowband targets I don't find this to be an issue.

One other thing you'll notice is I don't have an even number of each filter. The reason for this is I start out with an even number set for each in my sequence, but then have to cull poor images when I integrate. I often will remove based on background luminance (too low to the pollution on the horizon), FWHM if it's too large (though I don't have a set maximum, so I just get rid of outliers), and eccentricity which would be from a wind gust or tracking fluke. After this is done, I often have an uneven color balance, and most times color correction fixes this issue for broadband shots, and in narrowband it doesn't really matter much.