Go Back   IceInSpace > Images > Solar System
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 28-11-2006, 08:36 PM
DavidH
Registered User

DavidH is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mackay,Qld
Posts: 141
Moon test shots

Hello Folks,


While out playing with my new gm-8 mount, took a few moon shots with the ED80, 2x barlow and Canon 10d. Stacked 11 in K3ccd. Here is the result.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Moon271106 (Large) copy.jpg)
60.5 KB37 views
Click for full-size image (Moon271106a.jpg)
99.6 KB27 views

Last edited by DavidH; 29-11-2006 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Added shot with stretched gray scale and resized.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 28-11-2006, 11:36 PM
stephenmcnelley
Registered User

stephenmcnelley is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 427
Everyone but me has an ED80....sad face....
Contrast is nice in that image David.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29-11-2006, 12:02 AM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,632
Very nice image David.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29-11-2006, 07:25 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,799
That's great David! I reckon it would look even better in greyscale with the levels bumped up a bit.

Very nice!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29-11-2006, 07:40 AM
DavidH
Registered User

DavidH is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mackay,Qld
Posts: 141
Thanks guys, I am on a steep learning curve with photoshop etc, and it appears to me that the result is very much affected by post telescope processing. Thanks for the tip Mike, I'll give it a go.

Regards,
David.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29-11-2006, 03:47 PM
DavidH
Registered User

DavidH is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mackay,Qld
Posts: 141
Have uploaded the original shot with auto levels in PS as an edit to the starting post. Thanks for the suggestion Mike.

Regards,
David.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 29-11-2006, 04:25 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,799
I like it, but it would look even better if you resized it to 900px wide or so - you've uploaded the full 3000px version which would've had to have been horribly compressed to get it under 150k
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 29-11-2006, 04:34 PM
ving's Avatar
ving (David)
~Dust bunny breeder~

ving is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
pushy arent ya mike!

nice and sharp fellow David H.
you have to be happy with that
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 29-11-2006, 08:28 PM
DavidH
Registered User

DavidH is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mackay,Qld
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
I like it, but it would look even better if you resized it to 900px wide or so - you've uploaded the full 3000px version which would've had to have been horribly compressed to get it under 150k
OK Mike, so if I have less pixels to start with, the info they contain will be less disrupted by the compression necessary to achieve a given image file size, right?

Boy, this learning curve gets steeper and steeper.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29-11-2006, 08:36 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,799
Correct Dave.

The best way to save an image for presentation to the web, with minimal compression and maximum detail:

1. Always work in full-size TIFF where possible - from the camera, and while processing. Always re-save as TIFF at each intermediate step (where you use multiple applications). Every time you re-save as JPEG, you're losing detail - so avoid saving as jpeg AT ALL until the very last step.

2. Resize for web presentation - usually 800px wide or thereabouts. Anywhere from 600px to 1024px wide is usual.

3. Use Photoshop "Save as web" menu item (under File). Adjust the quality slider until the "file size" preview is under the limits for where you are posting (ie: on IIS, 150k).

That way, you'll end up with less compression and a sharper, cleaner image.

Hope that helps!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 29-11-2006, 11:36 PM
DavidH
Registered User

DavidH is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mackay,Qld
Posts: 141
Have uploaded and replaced the second image with the resized version. Probably have taken the gray scales too far in some of the brighter areas, and lost some of the contrast.

<snip>
pushy arent ya mike!
<snip>

Thanks for your encouragement ving, but I think that the second image is a definite improvment over the first, with Mike's advice.

Thanks for all your replies.

Regards,
David.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 30-11-2006, 07:00 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,799
Looks good Dave, but like you said probably too overexposed on the bright areas.

Use the histogram tool to make sure you don't lose any detail by overexposing and cutting off the right part of the histogram.

You'll get the hang of it in no time! A great start!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-12-2006, 04:13 AM
67champ's Avatar
67champ
Registered User

67champ is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 221
All that being said,... I still like them. :-)

dt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 11:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement