Go Back   IceInSpace > Images > Deep Space

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 13-11-2017, 11:03 AM
Star Catcher (Ted Dobosz)
Registered User

Star Catcher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 981
Another 2070 in Ha :)

Yep another post of this southern favourite. Took this test image the other night to check operation after some maintenance on my camera.

Taken through GSO RC10 using 7nm Ha filter. 4 X 45mins each, STL6303E.

Ted
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Tarantula Small Size.jpg)
190.6 KB109 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13-11-2017, 11:10 AM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Looks like you got some nice detail there, Ted.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13-11-2017, 11:23 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Great result Ted.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13-11-2017, 12:21 PM
Regulus's Avatar
Regulus (Trevor)
Regulus - Couer de Leon

Regulus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Devonport, Tasmania
Posts: 2,350
Nicely dramatic too!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13-11-2017, 02:03 PM
Placidus (Mike and Trish)
Narrowing the band

Placidus is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Euchareena, NSW
Posts: 3,719
Both deep and sharp. Perhaps the dynamic range is over-compressed: there is room for the spider itself to be quite a bit brighter without burning out.

Very well done.
Best,
MnT
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13-11-2017, 08:25 PM
Star Catcher (Ted Dobosz)
Registered User

Star Catcher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
Looks like you got some nice detail there, Ted.
Thanks Rick, turned out better than I expected

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Great result Ted.
Thanks Peter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regulus View Post
Nicely dramatic too!
Thank you

Quote:
Originally Posted by Placidus View Post
Both deep and sharp. Perhaps the dynamic range is over-compressed: there is room for the spider itself to be quite a bit brighter without burning out.

Very well done.
Best,
MnT
Thanks Mike, yes I did wrestle with where the brightest levels should sit. perhaps a tad more punch, but not too much
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14-11-2017, 08:04 AM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Highest Observatory in Oz

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,152
Well check that out Ted ...part of me kinda goes wow and part of me goes yikes what the hell has he done there . I have seen this processing look in your previous images, what software/filter/process is at play here? I am thinking something in PI

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14-11-2017, 12:26 PM
Star Catcher (Ted Dobosz)
Registered User

Star Catcher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike View Post
Well check that out Ted ...part of me kinda goes wow and part of me goes yikes what the hell has he done there . I have seen this processing look in your previous images, what software/filter/process is at play here? I am thinking something in PI

Mike
Hi Mike. I have never come to grips with PI despite revisiting the software over the years. I still use Photoshop 3 for my main processing with Maxim for initial pre-processing/flattening etc.. Sometimes I'll run the image through deconvolution in Astraimage.

I rely heavily on layers to isolate areas of filter effect, I make use of plug-ins from carboni tools and a variety of Topaz filters/modules for sharpening/focus, Denoise/Dejpeg, dynamic range redistribution using the clarity modules. I don't usually follow the exact workflow as it really depends on how much S/N I have in the image and how well I can achieve isolation of stars, nebula and dark backgrounds. I still use the smart sharpening in PS for different scale structures.

So I'm a bit of a dinosaur in the processing space and my inconsistent workflow means that if I were to process the same image today from scratch, it may look substantially worse or better!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14-11-2017, 04:41 PM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Highest Observatory in Oz

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star Catcher View Post
Hi Mike. I have never come to grips with PI despite revisiting the software over the years. I still use Photoshop 3 for my main processing with Maxim for initial pre-processing/flattening etc.. Sometimes I'll run the image through deconvolution in Astraimage.

I rely heavily on layers to isolate areas of filter effect, I make use of plug-ins from carboni tools and a variety of Topaz filters/modules for sharpening/focus, Denoise/Dejpeg, dynamic range redistribution using the clarity modules. I don't usually follow the exact workflow as it really depends on how much S/N I have in the image and how well I can achieve isolation of stars, nebula and dark backgrounds. I still use the smart sharpening in PS for different scale structures.

So I'm a bit of a dinosaur in the processing space and my inconsistent workflow means that if I were to process the same image today from scratch, it may look substantially worse or better!
Sounds like how I process too and hey, I still use circa 2007 PS CS3+

Aaah Topaz isn't that just deconvolution...? So all that might explain the heavily processed/sharpened look perhaps still, it looks quite striking

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25-11-2017, 08:30 AM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,937
You and Peter have using this technique for a while. Quite sharp detailing. Maybe a little more than is my preference but the impact is certainly there. Are you doing a NB version or colour? It should be high impact.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 25-11-2017, 12:01 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese View Post
You and Peter have using this technique for a while. Quite sharp detailing. Maybe a little more than is my preference but the impact is certainly there. Are you doing a NB version or colour? It should be high impact.
Actually, I’ve been using PixInsight more often than not of late
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25-11-2017, 01:09 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
I agree with Mike and Paul. More sharpening than we would like but you certainly got lots of detail. Overall though the effect gives the feeling of the image being overprocessed.

Its a processing choice and it depends on how you want to present an object. All valid.

The advantage perhaps of the detail would be when you do the combine where you typically lose a lot of that detail and it may make up for that.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25-11-2017, 11:52 PM
Star Catcher (Ted Dobosz)
Registered User

Star Catcher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese View Post
You and Peter have using this technique for a while. Quite sharp detailing. Maybe a little more than is my preference but the impact is certainly there. Are you doing a NB version or colour? It should be high impact.
Thanks Paul. Yes I'll get around to redoing this Ha and other narrow bands. Easy to ease the pedal on the micro contrasting but I am always going to tend more towards harder edges rather than fluffy.

Ted
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 25-11-2017, 11:59 PM
Star Catcher (Ted Dobosz)
Registered User

Star Catcher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bankstown
Posts: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
I agree with Mike and Paul. More sharpening than we would like but you certainly got lots of detail. Overall though the effect gives the feeling of the image being overprocessed.

Its a processing choice and it depends on how you want to present an object. All valid.

The advantage perhaps of the detail would be when you do the combine where you typically lose a lot of that detail and it may make up for that.

Greg.
Thanks Greg. It was processed as a standalone image without the intention to combine with other bands. The 16 bit tiff version does not quite come out as edgy as compared to this compressed version. When I attempt an SHO version I suspect the processing emphasis will change.
Ted
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement