Opinions please NGC2467

[muletopia]

Hello Folks.
I have collected 20 10 minute subs on NGC 2467 My guess is that I need at least as much again. However attached are three pictures. Step0 is a pure Astropixel processor result. In step 2 APP was used to produce the debayered stack but with no normalisation and the stack then processed with Startools. In step 2 the Startools output has been further stretched with Nebulosity over the top I reckon.


What do people think/recommend?
Chris

[AdamJL]

Hi Chris

Without even reading the text, I could tell that 2 and 3 were StarTools output.

I think the ST ones give better (but too much) colour. Desaturate that a bit and that'd work. Of the 3, my fav is the second.

[oska]

Nice Chris. I (naively) think all the first one needs is some finessing with curves eg: PI, PS, Gimp, etc.
I agree with Adam, ST has a very distinctive output. At the colour phase try artistic rather than scientific and turn the saturation down a little from there.

[muletopia]

Thanks AdamJL *john,
saturation decreased and non scientific colouring chosen.
attached is the result.
Chris

[carlstronomy]

The first image is very nice compared to the second two, I am sucker for natural colours. The more subs you can take the better detail you will get out of the nebulosity and greater clarity throughout the image. You are having to over stretch the data presently, getting a lot more extra subs will make your image pop :)

The final image has gone a little fuzzy, the first one had more clarity. Processing data is hard and there is so much auto tooling out there that can cost a large amount of money.
I found them confusing, most having a large complex learning curve and I know my way around computers. I personally stick to the basics, DSS and Photoshop, simple but I can still get great results.