RCW 71 reprocessed

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Hi to all

Not putting too finer point on it I think I stuffed up my first version of RCW 71. The nebula was far too brick red and the star colour was washed out. I re-processed it a different way and I think this version is much better. I also added a link to some of the descriptive material about the RCW catalogue to the description section of the page.

Cheers

Steve

http://members.pcug.org.au/~stevec/rcw71_STL6303_RC.htm

[TrevorW]

Appears better more subtle is the word

Cheers Steve

[Paul Haese]

Aside from a little noise that is one nice image Steve. Never seen that one and that makes it novel. Thanks for posting.

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Aside from a little noise that is one nice image Steve. Never seen that one and that makes it novel. Thanks for posting.

Thanks Paul. Yes I probably should have done a bit more work on the noise.

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Appears better more subtle is the word

Cheers Steve

Thanks Trevor. Yes - subtle is definitely the word. The other one was too much in your face.

[gregbradley]

Hi Steve,

Great image but to my eye there is still quite a bit of processing still to go on it.

Star sizes can be reduced putting attention more on the neb and less on the fairly large stars for the image scale (the stars seem quite large but that happens in some images - presume seeing was responsible?, tracking is awesome though).

Star colours are still too white and there is more colour that can be brought out.

The neb can stand more sharpening to reveal the small nebula ridges.

The dark dust areas can be made to contrast more from the background.

There are some dark dot artifacts in the background that need to be healing tooled out.

Background has green noise in it and mottled black flecks that can be smoothed out.

There is a light blue reflection nebula that surrounds the red nebula that can be brought out.

Saturation overall can be boosted a tad (subjective that one).

More detail can be brought out by adding a desaturated layer, sharpened and set as luminosity and layered in where its wanted.

Background and highlights can be colour adjusted to make the image look a bit more vibrant.

Only pointing out these items as your images are first class and this one can be a lot better than as-is and you image at such a high level.

I did all the above in about 10 minutes and compared it to the original and it seemed (at least to me, again subjective) to be a considerable gain (stars may've ended up a tad harsh so perhaps the star reduction needs to be subtle).

The final result can be a more striking and impactful image. Although let me modify my comments above in that this is my view of processing and others may want a different type of final result although some points usually get broad agreement.

For example I like Rob Gendlers' work whilst others may find it too colourful.

Greg.

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Thanks Greg. You make some good points there and I'll certainly investigate them. I did process this in a bit of a rush as I wanted to get something out there that was better than the first effort as soon as possible.

I like Rob's images too but I do think he over does the saturation sometimes. Jay Gabany's images also tend to often be a bit too colourful for my taste but they are of course immaculate in every other respect.

Cheers

Steve

[gregbradley]

I agree Steve regarding Jay and Rob's processing style. I think we each bring a style to the image processing but there are certain points that seem to have broad agreement. Each person's differences makes for interest.

Although it is interesting that a particular image done really really well usually gets broad agreement regardless of processing choices. I suppose they are the APOD type images.

Greg.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Nice one Steve. An area I haven't spent much time on. Must have a good look for something a bit different.

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by Hagar

Nice one Steve. An area I haven't spent much time on. Must have a good look for something a bit different.

Thanks Doug