Hi Erik, I suspect you're right that there is more info in the data to extract. The common goal is to present an image with as much dynamic range as possible which is often easier said than done. Your image shows great display of dynamic range but I feel the highlights (predominately stars) could be managed differently. I think I mentioned this in another post but when working with the additive RGB palette, white can't be coloured i.e. once you've hit 255 counts in all channels you can't add any more RGB values to it. By monitoring the highlights via a histogram as the data is stretch, you can keep a close eye if clipping is occurring. I believe you'll find if you back off the star intensity, not only will their stellar profiles be tighter/smaller but you get considerable colour saturation back in them for a more aesthetic result. If you're stretching the data manually using curves in photoshop or a similar processing tool, give DDP a try instead. I put together info on this a few years ago, but the principles remain the same. You can access the document
here. Seriously the data you've got to work with is great, so I strongly believe its worth the effort to see if you can improve on the result. You'll likely also find with tighter/smaller stellar profiles that the extended object nebulosity will be enhanced too perhaps addressing your statement that there is more to bring out. In my opinion, stars can make or break an image. I often forget about them focusing my attention on the extended object and realise the image needs to be reworked again. I guess that's the fun of processing and knowing what the data is capable of. Hope this helps.