Milkway from SPSP - comparison

[iceman (Mike)]

Hi guys

Here's 3 different versions of the milkyway from SPSP image. I'd really appreciate your feedback/comments as to which ones you think look good or bad, and if you could say why, that would be helpful too.

A useful way to compare would be to click on each attachment which will open up in a new window. You can then "blink" between the windows.

Thanks

[duncan]

Hi Mike,
I've gone for the middle one. The night sky looks darker and clearer to me. Just more natural looking but then i live with dark skies around me most of the time.
Cheers,
Duncan

[John K]

Great images Mike, the 2 left hand images work for me.

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

Nice shot's Mike. Number one for me. I like the way you have included the false dawn look

[CosMos (Rich)]

I like the first one. Like the way that the Milky Way cuts across the diagonal.

[erick (Eric)]

As an image, I like number 2. Interesting to see Jupiter approaching the size of the Moon! The whole sky has moved a bit north as you've rotated it in the composite?

No I don't like the lighter horizon in number 1. Dark skies for nighttime observing for me. I agree, rotate the lighter part of the sky out of the image!

[CosMos (Rich)]

Ooops, meant number 2.

[Garyh]

Actually like number 1 with the lighter horizon..I think the clouds on the horizon just add that bit extra into the scene..

[Ric]

I like them all Mike, but I'll pick No. 1. There is something about it that appeals to me that little bit more.

Cheers

[okiscopey (Mike)]

All great images, but just to be different, I like no. 3 ... more stars, more detail in lower left sky, better composition, no distracting bright object in top R corner (as in 2). If it is to be used for someting like SPSP publicity, the more stars the better I reckon.

However, I'd go along with no. 1 with the 'false dawn' as it gives the picture a layered, three-element look.

2 is right out ... but might not be tomorrow!

It's always difficult to decide, isn't it?

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

All nice but I Pick #3. I don't like the huge Jupiter in #2 and #1 doesn't show the bulge well enough.

Cheers, Marcus

[Robby]

Yep, my vote for #3. Nice work.

[rogerg (Roger)]

I find it's very rare that I like subsequent re-makes of an image (done by myself or others), 9/10 times the original is always best. This is no different, I prefer the 1st one.

I like the unique look of the clouds, the 3D depth they provide, the feeling of that layer of atmosphere being there but disappearing overhead revealing the stars, the softenning of the join between background stars and the foreground observing field, etc.

Typically I find the composition of a foreground still shot with a background star shot looks fake, because it is. But having the cloud layer on the horizon makes the image feel a lot more natural.

IMHO

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

2 & 3 look fake. Number 1 is the only one that looks natural to me. The clouds aren't a problem.

[snowyskiesau]

I'd go for number 3. Based purely on visual appeal and not astronomy.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

#1 looks best imo. very nice!

[middy]

No. 3 floats my boat.

The colours in no. 2 look too saturated for my liking.

In no. 1 the Milky Way isn't fully visible yet and those pesky clouds spoil the view.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Nahah. #1 is better composed to my eyes than the other two. Has a nice 3D feel to it - like the MW is stretching from afar on the horizon to close up overhead above the landscape. In the other two shots the sky and MW look more like a backdrop to the scene in the foreground.

[norm]

Its a toss up between 1 and 2 for me. I'll go 2.

[rogerg (Roger)]

Originally Posted by middy

In no. 1 the Milky Way isn't fully visible yet and those pesky clouds spoil the view.

But that's half the point.... you can see the whole Milky Way in any old photo you want, here it's about making the whole image work, not just show the Milky Way in fine detail...