Quote:
Originally Posted by StuTodd
I write this in frustration IIS deep sky imager.
You ask for crit, and freely pour scorn upon your own brand new creations newly forged on the pixels of your chosen cameras. Post number 1.
So I (and 15000 other potential viewers apparently) read your dire review of your image before bothering to "have a look" and let our hard drives spoil their parts by downloading your hard won, high cost crap...
But no.....wait..
You have obviously no idea what "coma" is, "over saturated" the over saturated excuse line.. looked at it too long in pixinsight and photoshop..
What I am trying to say is..your shots are beautiful, every gorgeous photon has probably been done sometime anyway.. there is no true palette so if your "Jive dancing Moose American silly name" nebula doesn't look so Hubble, just enjoy it and be proud that every element in your body, and that of your hard won imaging equipment, are one and the same. Stop moaning ..
|
you have a point, but when we spend 10+ hours looking at an image, trying to do the best possible processing job, we are all too well aware that we have made tradeoffs to get to the end product. I think that it is reasonable to point out known limitations in an image - it helps others to understand why an image looks like it does and may inform their future efforts in imaging and processing.