M42 with newt-To unsharp or not to unsharp!

[Garyh]

Hi all again at IIS ,
Been experimenting with a pic I took of M42 with my 6" f/5.6 newt.
Taken not last weekend but the weekend before when we had those great few nights up here...
Pic is a combination of 10x4min, 5x1min and 5x30 sec with dark frame removed stacked in registax and processed and masked in PS. Also was a experiment with peltier cooling as well as it was much warmer this night (sunday/monday) about 13 c (I shall do a thread all about this soon!!)
Anyways I experimented with different ways of processing the pic.

I looked at lots of images of m42 with top ccd cameras and big RCOS scopes etc, and nearly all the pics were very unsharped masked!! not my cup of coffee but!! like Mr Malins older astrophotos.

So heres a few I have done from little processing (just the normal PS) to one deconvoluted in pixelinsight in seperate RGB then recombined in PS then one with unsharp masking done..(cooked!!).
Any comments to what you like and to my processing, color balance etc?
Myself I like the original and the recombined RGB one!!!
Cheers Gary..

Files about 300k size:
Orig:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/uploads/garyh-m42-orig.jpg
Deconvolution:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/uploads...ution-rgb-.jpg
unsharped masked:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/uploads...nsharpmask.jpg

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

Hard call Gary, they are all nice shots. The deconvolution does it for me over the unsharp mask. On my screen the center of the nebula looks flatter or less vibrant in the UM than with the Decon.

[merlin8r]

For my money, I like the second one. Don't know why, it's just the most pleasing!

Clear skies,
Shane

[acropolite (Phil)]

Second shot for me as well. It just seems more natural to the eye.

[iceman (Mike)]

I'd have to agree with the above, all very nice shots Gary! Well done.

[bojan]

Unsharp masked one also masked the Trapezium.... I vote for other two.

[atalas]

Hi Gary

I like all of them but number three gets my vote,well done.

[RB (Andrew)]

Number 2 for me mate, but all are very good.

Well done Gary.

[Striker (Tony)]

between number 2-3 so somewhere in between...lol

Nice image Gary

[Ric]

Hi Gary, they are all great images but it's a toss up between 2 and 3, but I think I'm leaning towards number 2.

cheers

[rogerg (Roger)]

I would prefer 3 if it had it's levels adjusted a bit. I think the nebula needs to be brightenned up some more after having the unsharp mask performed. As they are right now, I'd chose 2 because of the dimmer look to 3, not because of the sharpness.

All are nice images with great detail.

Roger.

[jase (Jason)]

Somewhere between the original (image 1) and deconvolution (image 2). Image 3 looks too heavily processed - it may have work have worked if you have more data to play. You also need to be careful as to what stage you apply deconv or unsharp masking in your image processing scheme. If you lose critical information too early, then no amount of processing will bring it back. It is not very common to sharpen an entire image, simply select areas you wish to bring out. This will minimise data loss and provide a natural feel.

Its a matter of personal opinion. There is no right or wrong.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Gary,

Great images.

But, for my money, it's the second image.

Regards,
Humayun

[Garyh]

Thanks everyone for the replies.....
Always curious to what people find more pleasing to the eye.
I admit that I do need more data to get a much more detailed image which I shall do next opportunity and get at least 2hrs of data.
I agree Roger that if I can brighten up the unsharp masked image it would look much better as it is a bit flat looking..have to work on that!!! as I havn`t done much of it as yet..
I reckon myself somewhere between 2 and 3 would be just right..
Thanks and CS everyone..
Gary.......

[ving (David)]

nup, the unsharp kinda wrecks it.... dont go there girlfriend!

nice shot btw

[spearo (Frank)]

likewise, between 2 and three for me too, Three is nice just seems to lose saturation in the process?
that's probably the wron term but still, between 2 and 3
well done
I find these experiments with results put side by side absolutely excellent, no better way for me to learn
thanks for taking the time, doing this and posting
frank

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

First one is very nice.

You should always deconvolute. That only serves to remove artefacts from your instrument and the atmosphere (blurring due to diffraction and seeing).

Unsharp masks I generally don't like. They turn the image into something that it isn't. But it can be used to highlight certain features.