M16 the way it should be ..... hopefully

[Alchemy]

Recent images I’ve put up have had a certain amount of criticism (and fair enough too), which left me somewhat wondering. The source of my problem I decided (and hoped) was the monitor of the laptop I was using. Going to another IIS members residence and doing a quck side by side test confirmed my suspicions.

So a purchase was required, I went out with my wife in search of a NEW MONITOR , and bless her heart the budget for this was increased, to allow me to get a 24 inch 1920 x 1200 pixel one with an 8000.1 contrast ratio for my images.

This one came with a program called Natural Color Pro which allows you to set the calibration of the monitor ……. (yes I know the pro’s are cringing)…. Having done this I compared a few images with those I had printed at a reasonably reputable printing place, and was happy with the result. Which leaves me to consider how many monitors are not calibrated in any way out there? Im not saying mine is perfect (for photoshop users try going to SETTINGS/ CONTROL PANEL / ADOBE GAMMA in your computer for a simple test and compare to your prints). I could probably do this to the laptop now that I have a vague idea what I am doing, …. Note other laptops I looked at had a similar problem, I don’t know if they are set up this way for power conservation perhaps?

Now that I have done the introduction, on to the image, M16 as well known as they come. The one that’s bright red with green haloed stars is the OLD version:ashamed: it did look good on the old laptop though:doh:. The other one is the reprocessed on the new monitor version. I hope it looks the same to you as to me. I am pretty sure the colors will be right , just the brightness whether to you its too light or dark..... i did peek at jases repro for an IIS member and compare.... after i finished.
I tried to keep some star colors (thanks for those who sent advice) I will need to work on this further but a degree of success was made, my central focus in the image was the two ‘Towers " and trying to keep the luminous edges clearly visible, and not introduce too much noise, the crop is a pixel for pixel conversion 1280 x 1024 and further processed to add more contrast and correct the histogram black points for those who like to asses it that way, the blue was raised to increase the blue in the stars, and protocol seems to demand the background sky has a slight blue tinge to it.

For those who need to know what was used
12inch newtonian
qhy8 camera
6 min exposures (probably 2hrs worth) …. Backed up the FITS to disk somewhere?
G11 mount

[iceman]

Wow Clive! Stunning depth and detail. Real 3D!

Lovely work. Glad you got the colour issues sorted out. I know how frustrating it is!

[leon]

Nice one Clive, such detail and as Mike said it looks just about 3D, well done indeed.

Leon

[g__day]

I think they are great results. I'm curious - how dark and clear are your skies?

[Tamtarn]

Well well that certainly made a big difference Clive. Colour and background look great.

As you have commented, many of us need to check our monitors with a print of an image from a reputable photographic printer then compare and calibrate accordingly. Good advice :thumbsup:

[AlexN]

money extremely well spent in my books... the new images color and depth are amazing in comparison to the previous.. :)

Top stuff Clive,
Alex.

[Dennis]

Hi Clive

The latest version looks terrific on my screen, although the previous one also looked very good, until you now compare the two. I particularly like the wide field, the colour in the stars, the subtle tones and the overall impact of this latest version – top stuff! Oh, and I also seem hung up on nice, round, natural looking stars which this latest version displays very nicely.

Cheers

Dennis

PS - Re Clive’s comment about Jase's reprocess, this is the link to Jase’s reprocess (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=35275)of my somewhat dull M16. In the post, Jase provides a nice description of the process he used to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.

[drmorbius]

I don't know how you guys do this stuff, but the end results are very impressive. Interesting about the monitor... I've always been surprised at the amount of difference between models.
And what's with the budget being increased? :eyepop: Have you mentioned that new scope you wanted? :whistle:

[Garyh]

Excellent work Clive!, beautiful detail! and color....24" monitor would sure be real nice!

[strongmanmike]

Well, the first one (the one on the left) looks pretty well spot on to me mate, in fact it looks very familiar! ;)

Nice job :thumbsup:

Mike

[rat156]

Hi Clive,

Nice image, colour is definitely "better" in the latest version.

But...

The stars seem to have been clipped a bit, resulting in either pale orange or pale blue stars. Maybe there's a little too much blue.

Here's my rendition of the same object, you can see the stars seem different.

Cheers
Stuart

[strongmanmike]

I do see what you mean Stuart, regarding Clives stars..although they don't detract from the image as a whole. I think Clives colour balance is more accurate than that displayed in the image you have posted as a comparison though.

Clive, if you can just bolster the star brightness a tad it would make what is already a fantastic image even better IMO!

It really is a top shelf example of M16 :thumbsup:

Mike

[Matty P]

Just beautiful Clive, a huge improvement from your last image although the first is great as well.

Like Alex has said, money well spent.

Well done. :thumbsup:

[Alchemy]

Whew lots of responses to reply to here.


i live 64ks from Melbourne CBD, the west shows sky glow to 45 deg on the horizon, to the east its pretty good, not quite outback , but no filters are required to combat light pollution (apart from my neighbours floodlights:rolleyes:) .



thanks dennis ( i will comment more on this at end of post)

plus jase does do a remarkable job with his processing ..... check out the link dennis provided



SSSHHHHHH....... One step at a time :D weve just had one win , better not push it for a little while




Cheques in the mail mike:whistle:. That puts you in the professional section for the Malins now:P...... hehehe



well thats one for and one against so far... more to say later.



Make that 2:1


Ok the colored stars, this was deliberate. i got a very early version and saturated it stretched it saturated it etc, used the color range tool and selected enough stars so as to copy into the almost finished image, and blended on a percentage. Without doing something like this all i get is stars that are white (particularly the blue ones ) with a tiny colored ring around the extremity. this is the first ive done this way.... perhaps a slightly lower percentage rate for the blend...... i will wait to see what the general concensus is..... i will hunt the hard drive for the version without the colors to the stars added.... give me an hour or 2 as pizza has just arrived

To all thanks for looking, i would be interested in others opinions on the star colors.


clive.

[theodog]

Good one Clive.
I think the stars on the new one (left) are good, as is the whole image.;)
It does have a 3D feel about it.:thumbsup:
Well done, both the image and with the financial advisor.:D

[Ric]

Very nice Clive, good depth and detail in the image.

Very enjoyable.

[Alchemy]

Back again.... finished the pizza.

Busy night , more to reply too



thats 2 all...... thanks O dog




as always thanks ric




i had a good look at your stars and you have rendered them extremely well. mine just went white so i used different tactics, which perhaps need refining a little

Now the reply for the colored stars part 2
i appreciate the honest replys with regards to this, and im not concerned in a negative way by any of them. i did a quick calculation on the crop i provided.... if this was printed at that resolution it would be a 30 inch by 20 inch print, so you are getting more up close, than you would say, at a photo competition. i have submitted for your consideration

1. an earlier version of the crop... without the color added to the stars
2. a full frame of the image.... note this is an incomplete image in comparison to the first crop as i tinkered with that one further to present it BUT i have added the star colors, and i dont think that at this size ( equivalent to a 12 inch by 8 inch print) its so noticable... or is it?

Clipping is the losing of data as it is cut off, note at the black end we are all aware via the histogram, we are usually clipping at the white end too as soon as the values hit 255 ( for 8 bit , 65000 odd for 16 bit etc) you have actually lost all data for that section of the object.... perhaps restoring some of that data is not such a bad idea, maybee this is the right way and the usual needs improving? (unless you have some very good processing skill and can prevent it from clipping). there are better ways of doing this no doubt, and with a better result if done well, .......

Image processing is like herding cats..... so many things happening at once to keep ones eye on.

[Dennis]

Both the last two processed variations/crops are simply gorgeous!

Cheers

Dennis

[AlexN]

I really like the last image posted... the wider FOV and stronger looking contrast is brilliant. :)

Well done mate.

[winensky]

Love the full frame. Colours are well saturated and the contrast is sharp without looking unnatural. Yummy.

[Alchemy]

up earlyish this morning, no need to sleep in as it was cloudy last night (whats new about the clouds:rolleyes:)

Dennis, Alex, Winesky, thanks for looking and revisiting.

Ive been provoked by strongman mike to enter next years Malins (right so now we get serious)..... so you lot are my guinea pigs for new ideas, depending on the response i may or may not use them. Got a lot more to learn but its been interesting so far

Thanks all for your replies, i read each and every one, although to give a detailed reply to each would clog up the thread, THANKS FOR LOOKING

[rat156]

Hi Clive,

I see what you mean regarding the crop. I didn't realise you had cropped and blown the image up. That has something to do with the un-natural looking stars. I actually like the unprocessed version better, which even cropped and blown up looks about right, to me that is. You know some of those stars will actually appear white, in your coloured version the yellow/golden stars look OK, but the blue ones just seem out of place.

This is only my opinion though, image processing is art, it's your interpretation of the object, not a photograph.

Glad to hear that you can take a little constructive critisism, that's the main reason I post pics, so others can tell me what I've done wrong. Although the "Nice" comments are nice to hear, someone pointing out an error (real or perceived) is helpful.

Cheers
Stuart

[strongmanmike]

:poke: :camera: :computer: :confuse3: :computer: :confuse3: :computer:..... :clap: :cheers:

:thumbsup:

[spearo]

wow!
very impressive, love the detail of the Pillars.
Great work!
frank

[bluescope]

I think most people would be happy with any of the images you have posted Clive, great work.

As regards monitors .... most of us probably have LCD's nowadays either with Laptops or as "upgrades" to the old CRT's but I think a good high res CRT takes a lot of beating for image processing. LCD's are very positional i.e. you have to view them straight on, if that makes sense. I have a 19 inch CRT that I used for my landscape photography for years and I think I will resurrect it when I move to my dark sky location next year ... there simply isn't enough space to have it setup where I am currently living. LCD's look cool and take up little space but I think they are best used in offices and shops where reflections are a major problem. I have probably stirred up an ants nest now but there you go :shrug:.

Hey, I have 2 laptops and a 20" LCD on my old desktop but a 17" CRT in my observatory. However my TV is a Panasonic 50" HD Plasma :D. They all have there pros and cons ..... but I love my Plasma :lol:.

:thumbsup:

[Alchemy]

yes stuart i guess thats about it, but thanks for putting up your image for the consideration, and allowing us a close up look at what youve done.



thanks frank, the pillars had a certain amount of processing done on them that was not applied to the rest of the image, particularly sharpening/contrast routines, which against the soft background , help it stand out.




Actually i have heard this many times so i wont disagree with you, there are some like the EZIO that are made for image processing though, (i bought a cheaper item). i have noticed you dont have to be much off square for it to make a difference, and have adjusted mine to eye level height. ..... i wonder if you could use the 50 inch hooked up as a monitor:)




and finally mike...... yep going to have to have a go, :fight:

Question ......does a bunch of narrow fields stitched together = a wide field ?,

i need to find a link to inspect the entry rules and catagories.

[strongmanmike]

:lol: good on ya Jedi Clive



I think you will find that with the DM's if you used a dedicated "telescope" for your entry it is clasified as Deep Sky regardless of the FOV. If you used a camera lens it is then clasified as wide field. John and David would most likely adjust categories for you based on the equipment used as stated on your entry form?

You are quite right to think about this though and I had this discussion with Jase, if someone was to do say an 18 frame mozaic of Eta Carina using a 6" telescope this would indeed be a wide field to most but per the rules since it was done using a telescope it is in the Deep Sky category ..:doh:..:shrug:..:rolleyes: :screwy: :lol:

Mike

[AlexN]

I use my Sony 52" HD LCD as my main computers monitor... As a matter of fact, since buying it, its only actually had to display a TV channel for about 20 minutes.... its been connected to the PC for nearly 7 months straight... Once you hook it up "just as a test... " you never go back... I since sold my 2x 20" Samsung monitors...

[bluescope]

"wonder if you could use the 50 inch hooked up as a monitor:)"

Actually it does have a PC connection but I have yet to try it ... probably look good.

:thumbsup:

[gregbradley]

Wonderful image of what I think is a rather hard object.

Greg.

[AlexN]

I can tell you right now - Looking at all the insanely good high res deep space images on here / apod etc is pure GOLD with a 52".. GOLD I TELLS YA!!!

[jase]

Nice repro Clive. It looks on the money. You need to reprocess a few more to get a feel for how well you're managing the stellar profiles. Some images a harder than others to bring the star saturation back or under control.

[Alchemy]

thanks jase, im armed with some info regarding this now so will take a closer look at the profiles in the future. Now that i have a better monitor am reprocessing a few items so will post one or two in due course.


Thanks Greg for looking.

------------------------------------------------------------

time to let someone else have a go so my last reply for this thread

cheers clive.

[Hagar]

Very Nice Clive. Definite overall improvement. Money well spent.