Your planetary processing objective

matt · #1 14-09-2009, 06:18 PM

Hi guys.

I've been experimenting and trying a few different approaches to my processing technique recently.

I find myself increasingly shifting away from pushing the data as hard as will allow. This tends to be the convention when going for as much detail as possible. But I think it renders an image devoid of some kind of warmth and realism as might be seen when visually appraising the subject. By that, I mean, how it would appear in the real world...to one's eyes.

What I find myself attracted to these days is a more gentle processing where the appeal is based on more 'natural' looking processing.

It's becoming increasingly about developing an 'aesthetic'.

What do you think, and what's important to you?

MJ_ (Matt) · #2 14-09-2009, 07:41 PM

Yeah i agree, ive only been imaging jupiter a short while but i can understand what you mean. I saw your latest shot of jupiter and thought it was done really well in a natural way. What appeals to me most is an image that appears as real as possible, like how you would see it travelling through space and if you push the data too hard it takes away that effect.

Matt Wastell (Matt) · #3 14-09-2009, 07:49 PM

Hi Matt (I am not stalking you!)
This is a great discussion - I hope everyone has a say.
I like to see natural colours - I have an image taken by Cassini as it passed Jupiter - I like the salmon tinge - it is my reference image.
You have posted an image that appeals to me - also bird's from 10 September does too - detail but not at the expense of smoothness.
I think I fall into your 'aesthetics' team!

Paul Haese · #4 15-09-2009, 02:53 PM

I have been processing with the fine detail natural look for 3 years now. I don't really like working images too much and looking blocky; which tends to be a popular look. I like if possible to capture the really fine detail and part of that is the wavelets settings I use. I find that using 4,5 and 6 tend toward creating very blotchy looking images. I only ever use wavelets 2 and 3 and for the most part it works for my images. It also gives very fine detail views. Where it falls down is where the seeing is less than satisfactory, which has been a problem here this year. My motto is good data really does not require a lot of working it just needs tweeking.

Inevitably everyone has their own style of processing and most people can pick Bird's, Damian's, Mikes, Pete Lawrence's, Dave Tyler's and even mine (and quite a few others) without knowing that we actually processed it.

I applaud your wanting to process to get nice fine detail. I like the look and that is why I have been doing it for so long.

rat156 · #5 15-09-2009, 04:48 PM

Hi All,

Paul only needs to work with the small numbered wavelets as his image scale is so large. When you don't have as much image scale you have to work with the higher wavelet numbers, the little ones only introduce noise.

Cheers
Stuart

matt · #6 15-09-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat156

Hi All,

Paul only needs to work with the small numbered wavelets as his image scale is so large. When you don't have as much image scale you have to work with the higher wavelet numbers, the little ones only introduce noise.

Cheers
Stuart

I've found this to be the case too, Stu.

I seldom touch sliders one or two. All my wavelet work is done with sliders 4,5 and 6....with only occasional use of 3 to a setting of less than 10.

Although I'm using wavelets to a much lesser degree these days. I tend to do very mild wavelets and then more sharpening in PS with high pass.

I really appreciate the comments so far in this thread. I find the discussion very interesting. It's a good talking point

desler · #7 15-09-2009, 06:07 PM

Really good thread Matt,

I've been playing around with wavelets (black magic) for a while now. I've picked up a few personal variations that some people stick with, although I think in Pauls tutorial, he discusses that each image and capture is a little different thus there being no set rules for wavelet processing.

When the seeing is good, I find it really easy to get something I'm happy with, when it's not so good, i tend to pull my hair (which I haven't got a lot of) out.

The one thing that the digital image has bought us, is give it a try, remember what you've done and if you don't like it, start over with the data and try something else.

I find imaging, both planetary and deep space to be one of the most difficult pursuits to find the happy medium, where one rule fits all.

That's probably why there is such an addiction!!!!!

Have fun and keep introducing such interesting topics.

Darren

daveg (Dave) · #8 20-09-2009, 03:29 AM

Agree - great thread.

For my solar images I only use wavelet 2 or 3 in gaussian mode. The last thing I always do is to add a gaussian blur layer in PS. The amount and opacity depends on the quality of the image. For a good one its barely there - but it is there.

I also think over processed images look less appealing. I would rather see a slightly blurred/soft image with detail than an over processed blocky staurated one. Remeber as soon as you over process you're loosing some of the detail that you've work so hard to capture.

Dont know if I'd agree with the image scale/wavelet size statement. As the smaller number wavelets are fo finer detail I would think that if the image is small in scale than a small wavelet should be used. If on the other hand the image is noisey due to bad seeing, say, then using a small numbr wavelet would bring out the noise alright. And this is where the guys like Paul, Bird and Trevor have the ace. Their raw images are full of detail and v little noise.

Good to see everyones opinion on this thanks Matt

Dave Gradwell

matt · #9 20-09-2009, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveg

Dont know if I'd agree with the image scale/wavelet size statement.

Hi Dave.

I could be wrong and don't purport to be an expert on this, but I think it's relevant, or certainly applies, when comparing the processing of images captured with scopes of varying aperture and subsequent resolving capabilities.

I'm working with 9.25" of aperture, and Stu (rat156) has a 10". For us, the extent we can use those finer sliders (2 and 3) is limited at processing time as a consequence of the fine detail we're able to get (or not) at capture time, as compared to an instrument with the resolving power of a 14"...or beyond.

I don't use those sliders because they don't do a great deal for me....because my detail is just not there to eek out. All I end up doing is introducing noise or other artifacts.

But as others have pointed out...it's horses for courses. There's no hard or fast rules on this. Whatever floats your boat!!!

daveg (Dave) · #10 20-09-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

but I think it's relevant, or certainly applies, when comparing the processing of images captured with scopes of varying aperture and subsequent resolving capabilities.

Completely agree, what I'm saying is using a number 5 wavlet on a GRS thats 10 pixels wide (eg using your 9.25") wont have as good effect as using it on a GRS thats say 15 pixels wide (eg fom a 14"). Thats why maybe using a smaller wavlt may be better.

BTW have you notice how obsessed you get when you start wavelt processing. Sometimes I can spend hours going forward and back with the bloody things and still not get what i want.

Dave