That's a beaudie Lee but...and you know I luv ya work!!!...and only cause you have previously set such a high bar ...I'm still seeing the thin bright worms sharpening sorry... but as a result, at fit to screen size, it does looks pretty great overall ...I'm just a PIA stickler for real resolution...not processing artefact induced
That's a fantastic image. I have data on this one to be processed in both 16803 very widefield and also with the 183mm so much more zoomed in.
I hope they turn out as well as this one.
Greg.
Thanks Greg :-) Looking forward to seeing your version(s)! Combining wide-field and narrow-field images is pretty cool, something I've entertained... I never have enough spare cash for another rig though!
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
That's a beaudie Lee but...and you know I luv ya work!!!...and only cause you have previously set such a high bar ...I'm still seeing the thin bright worms sharpening sorry... but as a result, at fit to screen size, it does looks pretty great overall ...I'm just a PIA stickler for real resolution...not processing artefact induced
Mike
Thanks Mike :-)
I always take your feedback on board and you're almost always right. In this case I can see it a little bit, but I'm not as bothered by it as you are and since this was introduced very early on in the processing stage it'll be a PITA to rectify so I'm just gonna leave it as is.
Topaz Denoise (used heavily in this image) also sharpens, even when you turn the sharpening setting right down and I when I applied it I was looking at the dim areas with low frequency detail and not enough at the bright and high frequency areas so I didn't notice its impact there. Anyway, I really don't think it's that bad and I'm happy enough with it as-is.
... In this case I can see it a little bit, but I'm not as bothered by it as you are and since this was introduced very early on in the processing stage it'll be a PITA to rectify so I'm just gonna leave it as is.
Topaz Denoise (used heavily in this image) also sharpens, even when you turn the sharpening setting right down and I when I applied it I was looking at the dim areas with low frequency detail and not enough at the bright and high frequency areas so I didn't notice its impact there. Anyway, I really don't think it's that bad and I'm happy enough with it as-is.
That's a ripper image Lee - very pleasing to look at!! thumbsup:
I didn't initially notice any artefacts but if you look long enough at the full res you can see only a couple of very minor, easy to miss issues. Certainly nothing that detracts from the image!
I use Neat Image for my noise control. It allows for detailed, in depth control over noise profiles in an image. I use the PS plugin but it is also standalone. No noise software should sharpen unless you ask for it.
Pretty cool shot Lee, nice colors. Gotta agree with Mike. The highlights are blobly in the high res. Shame coz otherwise your star profiles are always impeccable.
I always take your feedback on board and you're almost always right. In this case I can see it a little bit, but I'm not as bothered by it as you are and since this was introduced very early on in the processing stage it'll be a PITA to rectify so I'm just gonna leave it as is.
Topaz Denoise (used heavily in this image) also sharpens, even when you turn the sharpening setting right down and I when I applied it I was looking at the dim areas with low frequency detail and not enough at the bright and high frequency areas so I didn't notice its impact there. Anyway, I really don't think it's that bad and I'm happy enough with it as-is.
And all fair enough too Lee, I get it
Particularly in the case of regularly imaged targets, like this pair and when you consistently produce such good work, it is only ever going to be fairly minor things that can be suggested to further improve an already good image and such comments do risk appearing, to those that don't know the connection we have at least, perhaps somewhat picky but as you know, I'm a big fan of your work and any comments I ever make (apart from those lauding the processing ground you walk on ) are very genuine comments and not criticisms, made knowing full well you will understand the motivation behind them I love this image game palava and don't pass disingenuous comments about anyone's images
If an image is of a less well known or rarely imaged object the processing quality is much less of a concern to me and the intriguing nature of the target tends to dominate any comments made
That's a ripper image Lee - very pleasing to look at!! thumbsup:
I didn't initially notice any artefacts but if you look long enough at the full res you can see only a couple of very minor, easy to miss issues. Certainly nothing that detracts from the image!
I use Neat Image for my noise control. It allows for detailed, in depth control over noise profiles in an image. I use the PS plugin but it is also standalone. No noise software should sharpen unless you ask for it.
Thanks Marc :-)
Yeah, I can see what Mike's referring to, I just know how long it took me to process this image and how far back in the processing chain I'd have to go to fix it... and I don't think it's bad enough to justify the effort. Maybe on a rainy day when I'm not sick of looking at this data :-)
Topaz is amazing at reducing noise, but it does horrible things to stars and is often way over the top even when dialling everything right back. I like to think I usually notice the issues and resolve them by blending back into the original data, but obviously missed some stuff this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Pretty cool shot Lee, nice colors. Gotta agree with Mike. The highlights are blobly in the high res. Shame coz otherwise your star profiles are always impeccable.
Hmm, I don't think Mike's referring to blobs in the highlights at all, he's talking about thin wormy structures so I think you're talking about something else there. And yeah, some of this data was shot under really ****ty seeing. I could probably make the stars a bit less blobby, I didn't give them much attention to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
And all fair enough too Lee, I get it
Particularly in the case of regularly imaged targets, like this pair and when you consistently produce such good work, it is only ever going to be fairly minor things that can be suggested to further improve an already good image and such comments do risk appearing, to those that don't know the connection we have at least, perhaps somewhat picky but as you know, I'm a big fan of your work and any comments I ever make (apart from those lauding the processing ground you walk on ) are very genuine comments and not criticisms, made knowing full well you will understand the motivation behind them I love this image game palava and don't pass disingenuous comments about anyone's images
If an image is of a less well known or rarely imaged object the processing quality is much less of a concern to me and the intriguing nature of the target tends to dominate any comments made
Already looking forward to your next posting
Mike
All good mate, appreciate the honest feedback :-) Might be a while before the next one... weather's gone to **** now and I seem to have developed some astig (again), possibly weather related. Getting eccentricity up into the 0.7, not in line with RA or Dec, present in short exposures and flips orientation 90 degrees either side of focus. I'm guessing one of the mirrors is not liking the cold weather.
Got about 15hrs of H on M16, looks pretty sharp but lots of it was shot under near full moon through thick fog and has elongated stars due to the astig... that data's gonna take some work but I might be able to salvage it.
Thinking I'm gonna go with a quartz mirror for the next scope, astig seems to come and go with this one pretty regularly... drives me nuts.
Got about 15hrs of H on M16, looks pretty sharp but lots of it was shot under near full moon through thick fog and has elongated stars due to the astig... that data's gonna take some work but I might be able to salvage it.
Yeah, yeah ..I have faith you will make it look like it was shot from the Atacama
Hmm, I don't think Mike's referring to blobs in the highlights at all, he's talking about thin wormy structures so I think you're talking about something else there. And yeah, some of this data was shot under really ****ty seeing. I could probably make the stars a bit less blobby, I didn't give them much attention to be honest.
No your stars are real good. I wouldn't have guessed you had bad seeing. By highlights I'm referring to some of the fronts as well as the stars in the small cluster linked together. That's a processing artefact. Noise reduction or sharpening.
No your stars are real good. I wouldn't have guessed you had bad seeing. By highlights I'm referring to some of the fronts as well as the stars in the small cluster linked together. That's a processing artefact. Noise reduction or sharpening.
Ah, I see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Very nice Lee. Not overblown and a nice balance with the dark structures.
Thanks very much Chris!
Quote:
Originally Posted by topheart
A very nice and striking rendition Lee!
Cheers,
Tim
...I'm still seeing the thin bright worms sharpening 
sorry... but as a result, at fit to screen size, it does looks pretty great overall 
...I'm just a PIA 
stickler for real resolution...not processing artefact induced
but as you know, I'm a big fan of your work and any comments I ever make (apart from those lauding the processing ground you walk on 
) are very genuine comments and not criticisms, made knowing full well you will understand the motivation behind them 
