Doing my head in!

[LewisM]

I did 2 hrs OSC on NGC 6188 last night (and BLOODY cold it was too!). Focus migrated with the drop in temperature (manually focused), but I was inside keeping warm so yes, the bloat from focus shift is there.

http://www.astrobin.com/193818/0/

In Photoshop, the colours are FAR more vibrant. I really like the PS version, and it is relatively noise free.

But upload it to Astrobin, even as a lossless PNG, and it turns out like the above link. I tried boosting colours in the revision, and still the same yak.

I save all the JPEGS with ICC profiles (and PNG's have this auto saved). But still the version on PS compared to online is SIGNIFICANTLY different.

How can I calibrate PS and browsers to look similar? It's driving me nuts, because online the images look just caca (well, more than usual)

(Lossy jpeg example below).

[LewisM]

PS's version has pinks and reds, a touch of blue and actually VERY minimal noise.

The online versions look like someone farted on them after eating curry.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[issdaol (Phil)]

Looks like your AP process is not very ROBUST Lewis ;-P he he

[LewisM]

Listen here linguini!

[RickS (Rick)]

Lewis,

Astrobin does not preserve ICC Profiles. It just strips them off. This is a major peeve of mine.

If you're using a wide gamut colour space, like ProPhotoRGB or AdobeRGB then your images will generally look muted when displayed without colour management.

The best solution I can offer is to convert your images to sRGB before uploading to Astrobin. That will give you the best chance of a more saturated result.

Cheers,
Rick.

[LewisM]

OK, I think I found the reason...

Trial: http://www.astrobin.com/193818/C/

[LewisM]

Hmmm. Better, but still muter than the PS version.

I will keep fiddling with the web setting in PS. Looks the same in Chrome and Firefox

[LewisM]

You are right Rick - no matter WHAT you save, Astrobin strips the profile out.

Anyway, hopefully a direct upload here with optimised for web JPEG settings is better

[LewisM]

Bought PBase page, so... http://www.pbase.com/lewism/image/160722053

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

That's a nice one Lewis. Yeah stuff looks better is PS I reckon because it's 16 bit or more. Jpeg for Astrobin etc look... well 8 bit.

[marco (Marco Lorenzi)]

Nice one Lewis. About the color profiles, it is ALWAYS better NOT to save the profiles on the images meant to be displayed on web browsers since very few web browsers actually manage them properly (in fact only Firefox among the popular ones). I did some tests and searched a lot around in the past and found that the best way is to convert the image to sRGB (the standard on internet) and than save the image for the web (PS has an option to do this) in JPG without embedding any ICC profile. This will save you lots of headaches later on..
Regards
Marco

[LewisM]

Thanks Marco - exactly what I did. Shame PNG - which really is for web anyway - won't seemingly save as well as the jpeg will. I guess just have to save at maximum jpeg always .

I like how PBase works, so was worth the $23 US.

The FSQ is a remarkable scope. I checked focus later in this run since it got cold FAST, and it showed out focus some on the Bahtinov. Even so, the image, despite the plumper star mass, looks OK really.

I refocused and did Antares region for 2 exposures (before I just did not want to tolerate the cold!), and the sharpness was absolutely pinpoint amazing (temp had stabilised both climatically and scope at 4°... that is COLD for here!!!).

I NEED Robofocus/Sharpsky - got to stop putting it off. Now what to sell?

[Slawomir (Suavi)]

Very nice image Lewis

However, I am still waiting for your interpretation of the spider...

[Rex]

Looks good Lewis? The Pbase version is much better than the first ones.

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

nice dragons lewis, I also like the orientation and framing.

cheers

russ

[codemonkey (Lee)]

Nice one Lewis! I like the wider FOV... composition feels a touch right-heavy, but otherwise very nice.