Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Sorry, not a fan of selective processing.
The end result is a total distortion/fabrication of the physical processes going on in the object.
I am very much an advocate of "respecting the light".
Non-linear transforms are absolutely fine, so long as they are applied globally and preserve the relativities of the object's intrinsic flux
With that level of "interpretation" you might as well get out the airbrush tool and draw the scene or use crayons...or whatever 
No law against it....but this crosses too many lines for my liking. |
Agree,
almost completely.
Enhancing the faint (low signal) areas in your data can require selective luminosity processing to compress the dynamic range. However, these are
not arbitrary selections.
The video describes
completely arbitrary selections within all parts of an image and then modifying the colour balances and luminosities within each selection independently. Aaaaargh! You may as well get out the oil paints!!
I completely reject the comparison to shooting at different focal lengths. Assuming same exposure details, if you visually compare the
raw channels of narrow and cropped wide field data, they will appear identical! Moreover, histograms should never be your ultimate frame of reference for processing. The relativities and tones within the raw channel data should be the source of your processing strategy.
Finally, aligning histograms in extended objects, i.e. covering most of a frame, is wrong headed. By all means adjust black and white points to remove "no data" parts of the frame and remove colour casts, but try not to mess with the histograms after that.