Well, my long imaging dry spell continues (foul weather and recent health issues) . So, here's another reprocessing effort. This time, my one and only NB image - M17 from 2016 data.
My ham-fisted original processing effort is on the right
The new one (I think more refined & detailed) with new processing insight, tools and RGB stars on the left.
Good for you Marcus, I too have thought about doing some repros as well, to satisfy my, now rather long, period of photon collection starvation, buuuut so far I have not done it
Your M17 is very nice...but unfortunately, as is often the case with repors, I like some aspects of both version The colour in the original is rich without being too saturated while the latest looks a little more muted pastel in comparison and the detail in the latest does look slightly forced and and seemns to be flattening the image a little (just a little)...so Maama Mia, it feels like a combination of the two will be the best result
Either way, just minor inconsequential feedback, its a lovely M17.
Good for you Marcus, I too have thought about doing some repros as well, to satisfy my, now rather long, period of photon collection starvation, buuuut so far I have not done it
Your M17 is very nice...but unfortunately, as is often the case with repors, I like some aspects of both version The colour in the original is rich without being too saturated while the latest looks a little more muted pastel in comparison and the detail in the latest does look slightly forced and and seemns to be flattening the image a little (just a little)...so Maama Mia, it feels like a combination of the two will be the best result
Either way, just minor inconsequential feedback, its a lovely M17.
Mike
Thanks for looking Mike , but naaah, the original lacks detail, colour nuance and depth and is over saturated .... no question . The dangers of comparisons I guess. Some people's aesthetics lean towards very saturated images while mine, not so much - but still rich. If you could see the old version at full res (on the right monitor with the right software - Firefox) you might have a different opinion. As for the detail, it's all real and pretty much all of it (95%) is contrast enhancement with a tiny bit of sharpening on the highlights.
PS: all my later images are stored with the Adobe RGB colour profile embedded.
...only giving you my thoughts mate and as I said, they are inconsequential, probably should have not offered them, sorry ...the difference between the two images is not huge, largely semantic really. I am sure the processing exercise was useful to keep your hand in though ...I'm a little scared of that myself for when I eveeeentually have to process a decent image again
...only giving you my thoughts mate and as I said, they are inconsequential, probably should have not offered them, sorry ...the difference between the two images is not huge, largely semantic really. I am sure the processing exercise was useful to keep your hand in though ...I'm a little scared of that myself for when I eveeeentually have to process a decent image again
Mike
Oh, Mike ... your feedback is always appreciated and certainly not inconsequential!! In this case, I simply disagreed with you. The two images are quite different - perhaps only to those like me who are somewhat scrupulous / pedantic about what is good and bad in my images.
Gotta be something new...SURELY! ...bloody La Nina (and forgetting lap tops )
Mike
Hehe ... I still can't believe we've had nearly 3 bloody years of this weather!
And just to prove how scupulous / pedantic I am in my (re)processing, see the histograms below from the old and new versions that show how different they are. In the old version, Red (Sii) is overrepresented in shadow and midtones, Green (Ha) is overrepresented mostly in shadows, and Blue (Oiii) is somewhat underrepresented in midtones.
Hehe ... I still can't believe we've had nearly 3 bloody years of this weather!
It's highway astro-robbery!
Quote:
And just to prove how scupulous / pedantic I am in my (re)processing, see the histograms below from the old and new versions that show how different they are. In the old version, Red (Sii) is overrepresented in shadow and midtones, Green (Ha) is overrepresented mostly in shadows, and Blue (Oiii) is somewhat underrepresented in midtones.
Bah! Pavarotti didn't read music very well at all but boy could he sing!
I quite like it. You certainly teased out a lot of extra detail there.
The stars are also a lot better as the original ones are too red.
Pixinsight or detail slider in Photoshop?
Greg.
Thanks Greg! All Photoshop ... I'll NEVER be a PI user. For detail I mainly use my APF-R (Absolute Point of Focus) action and one or more of: camera raw filter clarity, PS smart sharpen and the occasional very gentle wavelet for highlights via a standalone app.
My workflow now includes mandatory use of StarXterminator and NoiseXterminator. Very effective tools, much more so than the ad-hoc and flawed ones I historically used for the same functions. It's very liberating to be able to work on an uncorrupted subject without stars and vice versa. Yes, I added RGB stars, it makes a big difference.
great work Marcus - I actually quite like the original, but the repo is great too. Also if you're gonna repo its good to punch out a different result than being minutely different (which I'm often guilty of).
great work Marcus - I actually quite like the original, but the repo is great too. Also if you're gonna repo its good to punch out a different result than being minutely different (which I'm often guilty of).
Cheers
Russ
Thanks very much Russ! Just to be clear, my goal was to improve the image, not just to produce a different one. My repro goals are usually quite subtle anyway. Alas, the tiny original version I posted is not big enough to do a one on one comparison to resolve the improvements. Perhaps I'll post 1:1 comparison of of both of a representative area of both to illustrate the outcome better.
FWIW here are two full res cropped pairs of old vs new versions to illustrate and clarify what the reprocess achieved.
The original processing lacked detail and colour nuance and was heavy handed and somewhat arbitrary in terms of the colour balance (it was, afterall, my first and only NB image). The repro was much more objective in terms of the final colour balance.
Before repro on the left, after repro on the right. By any measure, the changes are significant.
The additional detail in the repro is fantastic! It’s amazing what’s hidden in the data ready to be revealed by a new process! I agree the colour is now more nuanced but there is something about the colour in the original that I like- but probably more of an artistic impression rather than anything else. Nice work!!
FWIW here are two full res cropped pairs of old vs new versions to illustrate and clarify what the reprocess achieved.
The original processing lacked detail and colour nuance and was heavy handed and somewhat arbitrary in terms of the colour balance (it was, afterall, my first and only NB image). The repro was much more objective in terms of the final colour balance.
Before repro on the left, after repro on the right. By any measure, the changes are significant.
well when you put it like that
great work Marcus - awesome stuff
The additional detail in the repro is fantastic! It’s amazing what’s hidden in the data ready to be revealed by a new process! I agree the colour is now more nuanced but there is something about the colour in the original that I like- but probably more of an artistic impression rather than anything else. Nice work!!
Thanks very much Dave! Glad someone appreciates the improvements! I get what you and others are saying about the original, but it really was a crappy rendition because it wasn't faithful to the data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustigsmed
well when you put it like that
great work Marcus - awesome stuff
Thanks a lot Russ, much appreciated! I guess I should have provided a full res comparison up front to make it easier for people to see what I was crapping on about.
Psychedelic colour blend, I like it! Very nice image!
Thanks Adam. Psychedelic? These are the colours of an SHO image wthout channel mixing (other than for quashing magenta stars) and with only relatively minor colour adjustments to highlight structure and add richness. I guess I'm a purist.
. So, here's another reprocessing effort. This time, my one and only NB image - M17 from 2016 data.
The colour in the original is rich without being too saturated while the latest looks a little more muted pastel in comparison and the detail in the latest does look slightly forced and and seemns to be flattening the image a little (just a little)...so Maama Mia, it feels like a combination of the two will be the best result 
, but naaah, the original lacks detail, colour nuance and depth and is over saturated .... no question . The dangers of comparisons I guess. Some people's aesthetics lean towards very saturated images while mine, not so much - but still rich. If you could see the old version at full res (on the right monitor with the right software - Firefox) you might have a different opinion. As for the detail, it's all real and pretty much all of it (95%) is contrast enhancement with a tiny bit of sharpening on the highlights.
...the difference between the two images is not huge, largely semantic really. I am sure the processing exercise was useful to keep your hand in though 
In this case, I simply disagreed with you. The two images are quite different - perhaps only to those like me who are somewhat scrupulous / pedantic about what is good and bad in my images.
(and forgetting lap tops 
)
