Quote:
Originally Posted by Somnium
is there value in doing a lum layer then ?
|
I do simply because I find it a lot easier to process using an RGB image and a Lum one. The RGB I don't do much to other than noise reduction and colour calibration. I do all other processing on the Lum. Partly because it is a lot easier not having to worry about three layers (the RGB) and because your Lum image is likely to have a better SNR than the other, making it easier to process and push that bit harder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glend
I shot M16 recently and did not use Lum and thought it was fine. However, i have tried a blend, and using that for Lum but did not think it made much difference, other than increasing the output file size. I think there is a tendancy for people to produce a 'forum standard' image when using false colour narrowband - as it attracts less criticism, other than the usual 'not enough data'. Unless your entering a calendar competition, or going for an award, then express it your way. It's a bit like a beauty compeition where it seems all the girls look the same, because it has evolved to the point where the contestants must have the right height, measurements, in the right proportions, to even have a chance; but in the real world there are plenty of pretty girls. Sorry if that seems sexist but it seemed a good analogy.
|
Probably wouldn't want to actually shoot a Luminance filters on a nebula as it tends to pick up too much other stuff that you're likely to not want, it being more sensitive to stars than the nebulosity.
Using a luminance shouldn't change the file output size. If you are working in PS and you haven't merged the layers then yes, you'' have a bigger PS file but when you go TIFF, PNG, JPEG or whatever it doesn't matter.