Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN
Paul :
Thanks mate, I took the first night of subs, processed the Ha alone and was really happy with the level of detail, I thought I'd have a go at adding some more data... A couple of days later I jumped on IIS to have a bit of a gander and some other images and noticed Martin's image that has an almost identical field of view! so much for originality hahaha!
David :
Thanks, I'm really happy with how this has turned out for a real 'quicky'. I'm really happy with the scope and camera as a combo, for my local seeing it would seem that 0.9"/px is providing wonderfully sharp results, and my processing workflow for narrowband seems to have 'settled' a little bit with a pallete that seems to work well...
Martin / Allan :
I made it intentionally dark considering that I had so little data, and the SII and OIII were decidedly weaker than the Ha.
I guess, similarly, having the stars so reduced is an 'artistic decision' I tend to make, as I purposely remove them, and stretch them separately to the nebulosity, trying to ensure they really don't overwhelm the nebula, considering the SII and OIII data were so short, I had to reduce the brightness of the nebula considerably, and so the stars could have been quite overbearing...
I will never produce/upload a completely starless image, as I think that images lose so much context and depth as a result of star removal, however, the stars are not my subject, so they will always be there, but always be reduced fairly heavily... I'm not necessarily trying to produce a 'true to life' image, or scientifically accurate image, so I'd rather have the stars heavily reduced as that's how I prefer to see them...
I do wish there was more data so I could push the brightness and saturation a little harder, alas, with next to no clear skies this past couple of months, I had to make do with what I could get...
|
Alex,
Thanks for the detailed explanation
Fair point you make and can understand the reasoning behind darkening the interstellar background which included stars. Although a tad brighter might have exposed more detail. One has to be contented with the end result always.
As I’m a Startools user it stays true to your data as it’s documentary Astro software and therefore remains as scientifically accurate as possible. Hence most of my images have pronounced Star fields. It works completely different to PI and other similar programs. I guess I’m the odd one out !!
Clear Skies
Martin