Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
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! 
Mike |
Fair enough Mike,
By the way -
that link I gave to the
Digging Out the Details
by Ken Crawford no longer works as it's the old Flash Player format
which is not available.
Back in 2011 I saved the 8 videos from there so I can still see them
all in MP4 format.
Ken hasn't republished them in a usable way even here:
http://www.imagingdeepsky.com/Presentations.html
As you know - these days some people are using BlurXTerminator and other more modern tricks.
In my humble opinion -
Ken's ideas are still valid - such as going to high signal to noise ratio
areas like the center of galaxies and sharpening more there
than other low signal areas - with carefully designed masks to exclude the stars - and adjusting the contrast too.
cheers
Allan