Tarantula reprocessed

[pkinchington]

At the suggestion of Marc and Nik I reprocessed my Tarantula image with less black clipping. Many more details were revealed such as the arch of nebulosity at the top of the image.
Cheers Kanga

[multiweb]

Excellent. :thumbsup:

[pkinchington]

Thanks Marc - I agree it is a vast improvement.

[gregbradley]

Perhaps too light a background or too much Ha overwhelming other colours. Yes the original was black clipped but now there are no dark areas of space.
Space is black.

Greg.

[pkinchington]

Hi Greg have attached a modified image is this more to your taste?
Cheers Kanga

[gregbradley]

Yes I think that's better.

Greg.

[Nikolas]

Whatever you did that is a massive improvement!

[multiweb]

TBH your original is on the money. There aren't that many pockets of sky background in your FOV and they look about right. So the perceived bright field is correct. It's all Ha mostly.

[pkinchington]

I agree Marc - I am just interested in people's tastes and was wanting to see what they liked :).
Cheers Kanga

[multiweb]

Well, stay close to the data is my advice. Reality is always more beautiful than popularity.

[Bart]

I think the first is much better, the second one is still too dark in the back ground. In the first one you have black back ground where it matters. Maybe some advanced work with back ground extraction may produce a better image.

At the end of the day, produce an image you are happy with. You are in this hobby to please yourself, not others. Take all the constructive criticism onboard still as it will help you get better. No one single person is right, especially with narrow band.

Cheers and clears. :thumbsup:

[multiweb]

Too right :thumbsup:

[houssamAstro]

Great stuff. Extremely detailed

[Nikolas]

The first is an accurate representation, if the data is there show it! This region is massive and very high in Ha

[pkinchington]

Hi Bart,
What is background extraction? How do I achieve it?
Cheers Kanga

[gregbradley]

The attached is more what I was thinking of. I agree best not to process to someone else's view as its your image. Others may disagree and that is fine that is just diversity.

I think these L extreme type images are a bit hard to process as they portray Ha as more of browny yellow red.

My personal preference is for an image to display a balance of colours not all red or all browny yellow. The star fields in this area have lots of blue giants so those stars are quite attractive. In the centre of the Tarantula are some of the largest stars known:

"One of the clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud contains R136a1, currently the most massive and most luminous star known. R136a1 has a mass 265 times that of the Sun and a luminosity of 8,700,000 Suns. The star belongs to the super star cluster R136, located near the Tarantula Nebula. The LMC is also home to WOH G64, one of the largest stars known."

Background extraction is a Pixinsight process. Its job is correct unwanted gradients. I used automatic background extraction and subtraction of the gradient. In Photoshop I then used auto tone, contrast and colour to bring the colours back and then selective colour to turn the browny reds into more reddish reds.

You got some good data there.

Greg.

[pkinchington]

Hi Greg,
Thanks for your help. I look at pix insight and it scares me - I have to learn a whole new library of Jargon. Might have to bite the bullet though. The data was from my QHY163M mono camera (like the zwo 1600MM) and Ha and Oiii filters and stacked in APP. I then did some additional processing in photoshop.
Cheers Kanga

[Bassnut]

wow that new rendition is quite striking, well done!

[Bassnut]

ooo, that might be wrong :P. Isnt something more beautiful likely be more popular ?. Reality is often not beautiful at all.

[rustigsmed]

excellent renditions Peter - plenty going on!

[pkinchington]

Thanks everybody for your comments. Lots to think about. :face:
Cheers Kanga

[Bart]

Hi Kanga.

Background extraction is a way of subtracting stray light and light pollution in your back ground and removing it. PixInsight calls this Background Extraction, Photoshop has Gradient Xterminator and other software packages will have a relevant module or process.

I used to hate PixInsight with a passion. Now I will not use anything else. It is worth the effort and there are many you tube tutorials to assist.

Cheers.

[multiweb]

I reckon over processing or what I'd call perceptive processing just gives a standardised look more often than not that is stylised. There is so much diversity and nuances in deep sky objects when you understand what you're looking at that not one is identical to the other. Both in term of colours/dynamic range and details. So why should one school of thought when processing make every rendition of different DSOs look the same or emulate what is "commonly accepted"? Sounds like McDonald astrophotography to me. I like good ingredients and fine cuisine without all the ketchup toppings :P

[pkinchington]

Food for thought! :)