M42 + Running Man reprocessed

[iceman]

Hi all

I've had more of a play with my M42 data captured the other week, and spent a bit more time processing it to give more contrast and sharpness in the neulosity. Thanks to Mark (wysiwyg) for inspiring me to give it a go.

I've still got a lot to learn with DSO processing in photoshop, but I'm more pleased with this effort. The nebulosity is more striking, has more punch, but I'm not overly happy with what it's done to the stars (made them a bit too hard).

Anyway, it's all part of the learning process.

The left attachment is the new image, the right attachment is the old one.

Thoughts/suggestions appreciated.

Thanks

[Lee]

I like it - the extra nebulosity/dust looks good - would longer exposures for these areas help?? - looks a bit noisier than the rest of the image. I didn't notice much difference in the stars in the web-sized image though.

[jase]

Mike, the uploaded images are too small to make a conclusive comparison. Sounds like you need to learn more about selective/mask processing. Rarely do I blanketly process an image. Doing so results in undesirable results. You need to have greater control so you can specifically influence/target areas. I like the nebulosity colours you've obtain after reprocessing this image. Stars do appear a little crunchy. Overall, both versions have merit.

[Ric]

Hi Mike, the nebulosity has definitely come out with more detail for sure.

A very nice job

Cheers

[Phil]

wow stunning iceman well done mate.
Phil

[mick pinner]

l suppose it depends on what you think an object is supposed to look like in the first place but l prefer the first one. l like a more whispy look, a lot of processing (when l try anyway) tends to harden the image and make it too defined on the edges and gives it a painted appearance. Sure is a steep learning curve.

[Tamtarn]

Definitely a lot more nebulosity there in this one Mike. But we both prefer the original one overall it's a lot more natural.

[Dennis]

Hey Mike

I prefer the original, although the re-process is very striking indeed. There are some Photoshop Actions that make stars more fuzzy and less crunchy – have a look here (http://actions.home.att.net/Astronomy_Tools.html).

Cheers

Dennis

[Omaroo]

Yup - another notch for your first one Mike - I really like this one. The second looks a bit overcooked to me and the use of smart blur a little heavy. Still a great shot though!

[Astroman]

Whoa turn it down a bit!

A little too harsh in my opinion, although it has bought out more of the neb it just looks really fake now. First one you posted was good, just needed a little work in the core to resolve it more.

[tornado33]

Gee they are both great, I can only thing the ideal would be one half way between them. Love all the faint outer nebulosity.
Scott

[xelasnave]

Mike considering how long you have been at it I really think you have done an excellent job... half the fun is trying different processing
alex

[dugnsuz]

I like em both for different reasons Mike.
You first attempt was a very nice balance I think - dark background, great detail.
The 2nd reprocessed one is amazing too for the amount of detail and data you've got there. Pull back a little to minimize the noise and star size. But man there so much data there to work with eh!?
Great work
Doug

[iceman]

Thanks guys, on reflection I agree my pursuit in processing for the sake of processing didn't really come out the best.

But as I said, it's all experimentation and learning.

I really need more data to bring out the faint outer nebula without stretching the data too much. Chris, I didn't use SmartBlur.

[Omaroo]

My apologies then Mike - the tonal graduation looks almost too smooth to be real. Nice!

[iceman]

Just too much use of Shadows & Highlights, levels, curves, saturation and noise reduction :lol:

[Garyh]

You have certainly pushed that data hard Mike! but I think that looks very nice!
Something in between the orig and the reprocessed would be the ideal.
But excellent result and colors..
Go Mike Go!!

[sheeny]

Well done Mike! Striking colours but perhaps just pushed a bit too hard. The obvious noise in the dark areas detracts from the image for me. All good experience though, as you say.:thumbsup:

Al.

[wysiwyg]

Well done Mike!

I think this is a good example of how much data is actually burried in the original image, its just a matter of making all the modification work together to bring out the desired effect.

I think between your original image and this one is where you want to be, and I also agree that using selective modifications can enhance the overall product but takes longer.

When I have time, I record all modifications on paper and save the image every few modifications, depending on the extent of the modification. I tend to not rely on PS history. The other option is to create every modification as a separate layer and when you save the image you have the option of saving the layers as well. As long as your documentation matches each layer you know what you did and why.

Then traverse through your saved images using a viewer and you can quickly determine what you like and what you dont like. Remember when staring at the same thing for hours your eyes find it more difficult to pick up on subtle differences and can trick you into seeing something you like that later you will discover you dont.

Tip: If you are using photoshop or any other image manipulation software, try to have a neutral colour background (grey), this enables your eyes to focus better and determine colours more effectively. As most of my skills come from photography as far image enhancement, I find that these subtle changes to your work space make a difference. There also other things like calibration of your monitor so you do get "wysiwyg" when printing, lighting plays a vital role of your lightroom i.e. do not have a light source directed at your screen, fluro lights are the best as they are much cooler and avoid bright desk lamps to the side of your desk.

Sorry a bit off the topic there, but none the less great image there Mike, and keep them coming.

Mark.

[h0ughy]

I like it Mike, but it is a tad grainy and noisy, wondering if there is a nice blend between the two?