Wow Ivo, it's hard to know where to start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwjager
|
Not arguing that at all. It's clear that you've selectively reprocessed a portion of Bert's image - you've changed what you originally posted and moved the goal posts. I did not critique this image, I critiqued what you posted originally as a whole. So why make the point that sharpening is a good thing? Of course it is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwjager
Yes, you are absolutely correct. I didn't take the time to create a proper star mask for the de-ringing (I just used a quick auto mask), leaving some stars unprotected (for example Eta Carina is fine, but some other smaller ones didn't make it in my mask  ). I tried to do better (time allowing) in the second data set Bert posted. |
I see that you've fixed it. But wait! ... See the first 3 star images below - from near the top of the frame. The first is my quick & dirty, the second is your first attempt (
the one I critiqued) and the third is your "fixed" version. The one that I critiqued (#2 image below) clearly shows less faint stars and less nebulosity - you have hidden or erased information from Berts data. Your second version (#3 image below) shows more neb but the stars are now a wonky shape. To me it looks like your reprocessing is more than just a star mask(?) #3 still has less stars and less neb than it should (IMO).
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwjager
I don't think you understand what wavelet sharpening is or how it works?
|
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwjager
I stated that I left the smaller scales alone and merely increased the prevalence of the larger structures (which the deconvolution cannot have touched). I fail to see how that automatically means an 'overcooked' image?  |
But I didn't say that Ivo. Decon and wavelet do not
automatically overcook an image. I meant that you had applied (IMO) too much sharpening to the image, period. Like I said, selective and controlled application of any sharpening technique is important - I do it all the time. Would I sharpen this image if I was processing it?
Definitely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwjager
Maybe you don't like the local histogram equalisation or optimisation?
Overcooking, to me, means showing features that aren't there (artefacts) or hiding features that are there through the incorrect use of filters. What do you define as overcooking?
|
Look at the 3 neb images below. The first again is my quick and dirty (no decon or wavelet). The second (#5) is your first version (and the one I critiqued). You see the halos and you immediately notice the huge amount of additional detail. Is it all real, possibly, but I doubt it. Have you corrupted the tonal balance? Yes, IMO. Eg: The blacks are lighter. In your second version (#6) the stars are still a funny shape and the blacks are now almost gone. You're flattening the dynamic range too much IMO. #6 also looks like the fine structure is
less sharpened than #5 so I doubt this is just the application of a different star mask. Unfortunately, in your second version you've exaggerated the large scale structure too much for me.
How would I define overcooking? One or more of the following: Oversharpened, over flattened dynamic range, loss of information, creation of structure that isn't real (even if just tonal in nature).
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwjager
... The automated scene (AutoDev) stretching routine comes up with the best possible curve by homing in on the curve that generates the maximum amount of detail for a specific scale. It guarantees that all detail of a specific size (I chose smallest) is maximally visible within the constraints of a global stretch. It allows you more artistic freedom in choosing what the important feature is in your image.
By the way, I challenge you to clip your data in StarTools (except when explicitly allow or in the Layer module) - you won't be able to do it |
Nice spruik Ivo, but I'm not critquing your software product - I'm not qualified. I critiquing your processing - that's all. Not something I'll soon repeat I might add.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwjager
... There is no 'natural' look in astrophotography and anyone who claims they know what it is is a fraud. ...
Personally, I think you yourself could stand to gain quite bit with your images by getting 'with the program' so to speak, ...,
|
Ooops, you just lost me.
PS: My apologies Bert - your thread again!