Great resolution Fernando. Right down to the core and the hour glass. It's an odd looking object in NB and the several times I have imaged it I found it hard to reconcile the colours of NB. I suppose I have become so accustomed with the traditional colour scheme and that is ingrained in what my mind thinks the Lagoon should look like. NB does bring great detail though and that is what one is aiming for when doing a full NB palette. Well done on the smooth background and detail levels.
Wow, looks huge Fernando, I like that. Yes there is some great detail and there are plenty of hidden animal shapes to find too ... buuuut the characteristic deconvolution/wavelettes sharpening artefacts (spidery dotty detail) are just a little obvious in the highlights, if you could rework that bit I think it would look even better (I have this strange medical condition that makes me overly sensitive to dotty detail and bright thread like wiggly worms in astroimages )
Could you repost the link to the details of the image? When I click on the link a 404 error appears. I really want to see what you used for this image.
Great resolution Fernando. Right down to the core and the hour glass. It's an odd looking object in NB and the several times I have imaged it I found it hard to reconcile the colours of NB. I suppose I have become so accustomed with the traditional colour scheme and that is ingrained in what my mind thinks the Lagoon should look like. NB does bring great detail though and that is what one is aiming for when doing a full NB palette. Well done on the smooth background and detail levels.
Yes I agree Paul. My target was to catch the details of the shock wave in the most inner layers of the nebula. That is possible only in NB.
Thanks for the comment.
Wow, looks huge Fernando, I like that. Yes there is some great detail and there are plenty of hidden animal shapes to find too ... buuuut the characteristic deconvolution/wavelettes sharpening artefacts (spidery dotty detail) are just a little obvious in the highlights, if you could rework that bit I think it would look even better (I have this strange medical condition that makes me overly sensitive to dotty detail and bright thread like wiggly worms in astroimages )
Mike
Mike,
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it.
There is always a "however", in any picture. But I agree with your remarks. To make this an aesthetically better image, I will rework on it, though seen in 100% this artifacts are almost unperceivable.
Nice and detailed Lagoon Fernando!
I do agree with Mike, it has some worms but it is beautifully detailed
Thank you. As I told to Mike, I will rework on this artifacts
Best Regards,
Fernando
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobbygon
Incredible Fernando!
Could you repost the link to the details of the image? When I click on the link a 404 error appears. I really want to see what you used for this image.
Thank you so much for the kind comment.
The link is fixed so, please feel free to check on the details of the gear used.
Best Regards,
Fernando
Cheers,
Angus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimmoW
That's excellent, very deep and crisp, well done!
Thank you very much. Your positive feedback has been very appreciated.
You got some great detail there.
I don't think the blue colour scheme will replace the traditional pinky red but its a new look and it does accentuate some areas very well.
You got some great detail there.
I don't think the blue colour scheme will replace the traditional pinky red but its a new look and it does accentuate some areas very well.
Greg.
Thanks Greg, I will give a new try in the processing taking into account you remark as well.
That's a nice result Fernando. I'm starting to like this object more and more in NB.
Steve
Thank you very much Steve.
I did a new rendition of this image with a little bit different pallet and also taking a better care with the stars, without sacrifice the detail and sharpness (I guess !!)
Hi Fernando, yes, as far as the details go, this latest version is much better, the detail showing is now much more real and not so artificially induced by the processing. I don't mind either colour palettes, they both look good, it was the essentially unnatural detail that spoiled the original version for me. There should also be three distinct colour hues within the image to reflect the fact that three filters were used, otherwise and although it may well look aesthetically ok, it becomes essentially a Bi-Colour image and the third filter data was kind of a waste of time.
Personally I am not a big fan of the all white stars either, for me narrowband stars should show some sort of colour variation, even some magenta stars look good in a narrowband field in my opinion (to me this is a perfectly legitimate effect of the palette), as long as it is not too strong.
Hi Fernando, yes, as far as the details go, this latest version is much better, the detail showing is now much more real and not so artificially induced by the processing. I don't mind either colour palettes, they both look good, it was the essentially unnatural detail that spoiled the original version for me. There should also be three distinct colour hues within the image to reflect the fact that three filters were used, otherwise and although it may well look aesthetically ok, it becomes essentially a Bi-Colour image and the third filter data was kind of a waste of time.
Personally I am not a big fan of the all white stars either, for me narrowband stars should show some sort of colour variation, even some magenta stars look good in a narrowband field in my opinion (to me this is a perfectly legitimate effect of the palette), as long as it is not too strong.
Great rework
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thank you so much for a so detailed comments. I should say that after seeing both versions I have to agree with all your points. As for the star colors a quick RGB capture should be enough to avoid the all white stars.
I just would like to ask you and to be truth to all friends in IIC that, at least related to me, to always criticise my images at will.
If you wanfdd I usually use something along the lines of the following for synthetic RGB stars. Every area seems to be a bit different but I use this as a baseline.
R: Ha*0.75+SII*0.25
G: Ha*0.5+SII*0.5
B: OIII
It's not perfect but it seems to be pretty close overall.
If you wanfdd I usually use something along the lines of the following for synthetic RGB stars. Every area seems to be a bit different but I use this as a baseline.
R: Ha*0.75+SII*0.25
G: Ha*0.5+SII*0.5
B: OIII
It's not perfect but it seems to be pretty close overall.
Thanks for the great suggestion Colin, I will try this combination and see what I can get. I will let you know.
Location: '34 South' Young Hilltops LGA, Australia
Posts: 1,481
The advice you received from Mike did make technical improvements to the image and I certainly respect his expertise.
Speaking on a purely aesthetic level, because of the stronger colour difference between emission and reflection nebula in your first posted version, that image gave me a strong 3D sense and that I was hovering in space hovering near the emission nebula and about to plunge into the hole in the center the reflection nebula. This is purely subjective and related to the focussing differences of various colours in the eyes.
As you followed the expert advice and reduced artifacts that made the image more technically perfect, the later versions begin to look more two dimensional and lack the wonderful 3-dimensionality of your original image.
Noentheless, I'd be happy to have the skills to produce any of the versions. Wonderful job.
... buuuut 
the characteristic deconvolution/wavelettes sharpening artefacts (spidery dotty detail) are just a little obvious in the highlights, if you could rework that bit I think it would look even better (I have this strange medical condition that makes me overly sensitive to dotty detail and bright thread like wiggly worms in astroimages 
) 
