View Single Post
  #17  
Old 17-02-2014, 09:41 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike View Post

I do have an issue with though is using processing techniques that rely on painting in features that are often simply not there or exaggerate a faint feature in an arbitrary way and it is this quality about RJ's (and others) images I think is stretching (pardon the pun ) it too far.

Mike
Yes Mike but Ken Crawford wouldn't agree with you:

http://www.imagingdeepsky.com/Presentations.html

He "digs out the details" using masks.

I often use masks to get the desired result but in a different way e.g.
An inverted layer mask is great to get rid of noise in low signal areas
but what about when there is noise in a high signal area?
The only way is to:
reduce noise for the entire picture until the noise in the area you want is reduced
then make a hide all layer mask,
then paint on the mask for the area you want to be reduced.
You can see the results as you paint.
Then you can blur the mask & reduce the opacity to make a perfect seamless blend.

I wouldn't have known that unless I had watched all his videos.

You can also do the same thing to sharpen a certain area while
leaving other areas alone - also -
e.g. at the edge of Centaurus A it is very bright & the tiny details
get lost in this brightness.
A selective adjustment of curves along the edges will show those otherwise hidden details.
You can "dig out the details" in such ways without
having a false image - it's just using the data you have.

Also - if you want a 3D effect then it's great to make the front area of
a target ever so slightly brighter.

Ken's methods allow you to give more impact to your images.

I will continue to use such methods but only in special cases -
it's too much work to do an entire image that way.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote