|
I believe - PERSONALLY - tonal contrast to be real. These objects are 3 dimensional, and not expanding equally to each other molecule around them. To process them as a "flat" diffuse nebulosity to me is fake, not the other way around. I am SURE that if you were to see a diffuse nebula up close and personal that there would be VAST tonal and wave front detail.
Again, personally, I like Ivo's example - I don't think it is pushed too far. Perhaps mine was pushed too far in comparison? It all comes down to personal interpretation. If someone dislikes a proposed example, please, post your own rendition of the processed data.
A few of the other presented examples displayed an over-exposed core - the central, defining feature of the EC nebula region. Personally, I bleieve this region needs to be presented LESS exposed because this is the part that readily shows up even in the shortest of exposures (heck, it's visible to the visual observer). To stretch the remaining data to show the fainter nebulosity is in many ways more fake than tonally contrasting the more readily apparent nebulosity.
BUT, to each their own. Seems a LOT of angst about very little, since it is all a subjective interpretation anyway.
|