Is true RGB imaging dead?

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Having done RGB, DSLR, NB and a bit of Ha-RGB and most recently planetary RGB over the past couple of years, I think I can safely say that each one presents unique challenges.
I am lucky ATM that the LP here is only moderate so it is fun to mix it up and experiment to see what works with different targets. In the end it is all imaging, we do it for our own satisfaction, so go with what floats your boat.

Having said that, I can now state without any fear of contradiction that planetary RGB imaging is a whole new world of pain!!

Malcolm

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Hmm respecting the light. I seem to have heard that before somewhere. It keeps coming back to bite me on the butt. See 2011 Malin M42 entry in which David spoke about respecting the light and visibly gesticulating toward my image.

Well it you think about it Lewis, NB is all part of the spectrum of light, even radio is part of the spectrum of radiation which RGB light is seen within. So what is respecting the light or what is True RGB imaging? Aren't we just capturing the part of the spectrum, should we only stick to one part of the spectrum? So long as you respect that part of the spectrum should that not be the criteria?

See my second response Paul :thumbs up:

[CosmicEcho]

A fine RGB image is pleasing to look at. It seems right. A narrowband if done tastefully can be very nice as well. But many narrowband images are just over the top, and really not that pleasing to look at. But, that's only an opinion. Nothing more.

[LewisM]

I share that opinion

[glend (Glen)]

Originally Posted by CosmicEcho

A fine RGB image is pleasing to look at. It seems right. A narrowband if done tastefully can be very nice as well. But many narrowband images are just over the top, and really not that pleasing to look at. But, that's only an opinion. Nothing more.

Narrowband provides much more scope for artistic impression. It is what attracts many of us. While there are some NB thought police lurking around, it's no where near as prescriptive as the rigid rules of RGB, it is an artist medium.
You can find many fine RGB images of the most imaged targets, and they all strive to look the same, but every narrowband image can be different.

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by glend

Narrowband provides much more scope for artistic impression. It is what attracts many of us. While there are some NB thought police lurking around, it's no where near as prescriptive as the rigid rules of RGB, it is an artist medium.
You can find many fine RGB images of the most imaged targets, and they all strive to look the same, but every narrowband image can be different.

I beg to differ - Mike Sidonio has shown a VAST difference in his RGB imaging impression to the "norm", as have many of the big time imagers like Gendler etc. You can manipulate the colours in an RGB image just as much as in an NB image to suit whatever "artistic verve" you feel.

[Lognic04 (Logan)]

I personally prefer just RGB/Ha (When done well!!!) I can see what people mean by having more freedom in processing with NB though.

[gregbradley]

Just nit picking its LRGB imaging. Luminance got added to RGB imaging several years ago.

So LRGB imaging not RGB imaging which is very rare as it lacks the detail LRGB gets.

Adding Ha to LRGB adds some extra depth and detail and if often very pleasing. Adding some O111 also can help get some nice blues going.

Sulphur is pretty much useless unless doing a full narrowband image.

I personally mostly do LRGB imaging and often HaLRGB even occasionally HaRGB (not often).


Greg.

[Andy01 (Andy)]

Originally Posted by glend

Narrowband provides much more scope for artistic impression. It is what attracts many of us. While there are some NB thought police lurking around, it's no where near as prescriptive as the rigid rules of RGB, it is an artist medium.
You can find many fine RGB images of the most imaged targets, and they all strive to look the same, but every narrowband image can be different.

^+1 What Glen said

[CosmicEcho]

I guess this is why they are called opinions. When I look at RGB images, I can only see a huge amount of variation. Some excellent, and others, not. Same is true for narrowband. Some are truly excellent, and others, not….


The same standards hold true for both. They should contain a result that is pleasing to look at, illustrate an element of depth and clarity, with a final realistic rendition. Not some awkward attempt and call it creativity.



But as I said, this is only a point of view as others have posted their point(s) of view.

[Imme (Jon)]

I feel like I’m in the early 1900’s and the art community is arguing amongst themselves about impressionist and realist artists.

....just saying!!!