Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
Hi Mike,
your images are very honest -
you don't add to what is there -
you seem to make only global adjustments.
I'm just saying that maybe with a little more stretching
those galaxy arms would have popped more.
That's your choice so I'm not criticising you.
people like Ken Crawford have a different take on processing
http://www.imagingdeepsky.com/Tutori...LB_Stream.html
and will step in with local enhancements which could
be described as cheating by purists such as yourself.
cheers
Allan |
Look I agree, global adjustments are more
genuine and prevent creating a feature or features when there really isn't much of one there, or worse, one at all and then defining it incorrectly especially regarding shape and extent, Lasso may not be your friend in this case, or reveal using the eraser in PS, so beware. Having said that, in the end, few of us are in this deep sky imaging for truly accurate science and many are strongly influenced by the arty side of what we do and that's ok too, there are no laws. Look at all the completely unrealistic astro skyscape type images that place the full 180deg arc of the Milky Way, in the sky behind a maybe 90deg wide scene of a church, or narrow 30deg wide view of rocks, this is just not a real scene but damn, it looks bluudy good!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryderscope
Nice! We do love a good galaxy
Now if you get on to this quick enough you might be able to image it again with the new camera and we could do a like for like comparison  |
Cheers mate and yes maybe I will, we will see....gota get up there and do the switch and have a play
Mike