The data is 17x16 minutes (4.5 hours) with the camera at -35C.
Here is a full resolution compressed 16 bit tiff file to play with. It is untouched after correcting for darks and flats and stacking. The resulting fit file was used to produce a B&W tiff with the fit assigned to all three colour channels.
The file is 218MB uncompressed. Here is a zip version 50MB
Marc you have already shown me I am trying to hard to get contrast and then lose real information.
We all have different styles of processing. You seem to like the sharper more contrasty type. I'm more mellow. Many ways to skin a cat. All personal preference really. I'm sure others will come with different and more pleasing views.
All I did was:
1_ strecth too versions of the TIFFs. One for the central details and one for the outer nebulae. The trick is not to burn the stars (or as little as possible)
2_ Composite them in two layers in photoshop. Put the sharp darker core on top of the over-stretched one with an opaque mask, then paint the outer area to reveal the faint stuff.
3_ Collapse the two then to a overlay in softlight with a high pass filter at 60% opacity to sharpen a little.
Surprisingly little noise. Nothing to do really but strecth. Top stuff!
Agree with Marc. Nothing to do but stretch. So clean data!!!!!
Anyway here is my image which appears to be a blend of both of both your procedures - doesnt need sharpening.
My PSD file is over 2 Gb and the reduction to a 200kb jpeg is rediculous.
Allan
Agree with Marc. Nothing to do but stretch. So clean data!!!!!
Anyway here is my image which appears to be a blend of both of both your procedures - doesnt need sharpening.
My PSD file is over 2 Gb and the reduction to a 200kb jpeg is rediculous.
Allan
Stunning version Allan!
I knew this would be a good idea as there is a wealth of knowledge here at IIS that we all should revel in.
My forte is data collection not data processing. I still have a lot to learn.
My quick & dirty version merely shows that there is almost no place in this field devoid of neb so there is very little (if any) "black".
It looks harsher than Marc's but that's done to highlight the detail inherent in areas that would otherwise look a little flat. It depends how you want to present the image - full res or scaled down. Scale can dictate the amount of contrast you need to display for best effect. Scaled down you may want a softer look than what I've done to avoid the overcooked critique. I can tell you though, at full res, my additional contrast yields an image rich in detail.
Just to try and illustrate what I meant in my post above - here is a much larger (50% scaled) version Bert. Screeds of detail and nuance and lovely to swim around in.
It is really interesting to see how the same data turns out with people interpretations. Very different versions. It shows that the objects we take pictures of will always look different no matter what and it all comes down to personal preferences and perception rather than technique.
Just to try and illustrate what I meant in my post above - here is a much larger (50% scaled) version Bert. Screeds of detail and nuance and lovely to swim around in.
Allans..?..well that's..?..I dunno? How'd ya do that Allan? ...I'm thinking Pixinsight ala Rogelio Andreo'ish..?
Mike
No Mike all done with PS3 extended with levels and curves with a little masking. No sharpening or Pixinsight magic. Too Vegas for you?
It's such great data which has been a real eye opener to process.
Allan
...I'm thinking Pixinsight ala Rogelio Andreo'ish..?
