Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Actually both of these images are not as bad as you think Mark. I pay little heed about this "respect the light notion" (yes I know who said this and I don't agree with this thinking entirely). Film is different from digitals response, film tended to burn out easily and bright areas blew out quickly and that left the dark areas quite dark most of the time.
Film was quite linear and the notion suggested is reflective of those times (no doubt this will start a debate but there I said it, I worked with film and that was my experience) Digital on the other hand means that all the dynamic range can now be addressed. So utilise the full capacity of your sensor mate. I think that your outer areas could be worked a little more as these look a little black clipped, but there is some very fine gas detail well away from the object.
I would suggest that a hubble image to compare with will give you an idea where to head here. That said, this is a fine result all the same. Just my opinion and each to their own I guess.
|
As I understood the "respect the light" message said that there are bright parts of an object and dim part. The example used at the conference was m42. If you bring out the detail in the core, but make the periphery of the object the same brightness, you are not truly representing the ranges of brightness of the object.
DT