ok then, something old, and something new!! i have reprocessed both NGC 6357 and M8 on a monitor that is now calibrated, and the Helix is a new addition.
NGC 6357 was an experiment to see if loads of increase on the SNR would help to bring out more detail, and give the impression of a great colour depth, that DSLR lack, i think it was a success, this image is about 13 hours worth (yes, 13 hours) of 10 min exposures, with matching darks and flats etc. i think it speaks for itself, its my favourite image since i have started the uphill climb on this journey.
M8 was bout 3 hours of 10 mins subs and darks, and again reprocessed. the core is on the border of being cooked, and i could probably sotr this with doing a HDR merge in CS4, but mehh ....
The Helix is about 4.5 hours worth of 10 seconds subs, again with matching flats and darks, i didnt need this much exposure time for a reasonable pic of this, but i wanted as much as possible to try to get a good merge of the colours, and to capture as much faint inner detail as poss.
I love the Lagoon. All three images are terrific. Glad to see you get the Helix. Looking forward to nailing it one day.
Your imaging is coming along in leaps and bounds!
would you say they are all washed out RB? or anyone in particular? any advice to pass on?
Cool shots Duncan. Data acquisition is excellent. I think Andrew means the pictures look a bit flat, but that's a processing issue. I agree with this too. Did you use any levels/curves or modified the histograms in PS?
Cool shots Duncan. Data acquisition is excellent. I think Andrew means the pictures look a bit flat, but that's a processing issue. I agree with this too. Did you use any levels/curves or modified the histograms in PS?
would you say they are all washed out RB? or anyone in particular?
any advice to pass on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toryglen-boy
i have reprocessed both NGC 6357 and M8 on a monitor that is now calibrated, and the Helix is a new addition.
Yes all seem washed out, not just one colour in particular.
I'll have to get back to you with some suggestions later but can you tell me how you calibrated your monitor?
Did you do it via hardware, ie. Spyder Pro, or via software like Adobe monitor calibration?
For the amount of exposure (especially 13 hours) you will be able to tease a lot of colour detail out of these.
I think it's just a matter of getting your processing steps right, because everything else (data acquisition) is terrific.
Yes all seem washed out, not just one colour in particular.
I'll have to get back to you with some suggestions later but can you tell me how you calibrated your monitor?
Did you do it via hardware, ie. Spyder Pro, or via software like Adobe monitor calibration?
For the amount of exposure (especially 13 hours) you will be able to tease a lot of colour detail out of these.
I think it's just a matter of getting your processing steps right, because everything else (data acquisition) is terrific.
yeah mate through software. i will work on it though, as the above statement is all the encouragment i need
yeah mate through software. i will work on it though, as the above statement is all the encouragment i need
I highly recommend getting a hardware solution for monitor calibration.
I know it's more money to spend and I wish there was an easier way out but the best way to ensure it's calibrated properly is to use something like a Spyder Pro, Huey etc.
Have a look at the thread below, which I posted, to see why it's deceiving to rely on just software like Adobe Gamma Calibration.
Also ensure that you are working with the same colour space on your monitor as your camera settings and that you tick both "Proof Setup| Monitor RGB" and "Proof colours" under the View menu in Photoshop each time when working on images.
Finally export you images in sRGB for viewing on the net as most browsers don't manage the colourspace.
Only Fire Fox 3.5 has the ability by defult to utilise the colour space setting of the image, which also makes it a bit of a pain atm because when posting, you have to take into account that some may be viewing your image with FF 3.5 and some with other browsers that are not colour space managed.
I highly recommend getting a hardware solution for monitor calibration.
I know it's more money to spend and I wish there was an easier way out but the best way to ensure it's calibrated properly is to use something like a Spyder Pro, Huey etc.
Have a look at the thread below, which I posted, to see why it's deceiving to rely on just software like Adobe Gamma Calibration.
Also ensure that you are working with the same colour space on your monitor as your camera settings and that you tick both "Proof Setup| Monitor RGB" and "Proof colours" under the View menu in Photoshop each time when working on images.
Finally export you images in sRGB for viewing on the net as most browsers don't manage the colourspace.
Only Fire Fox 3.5 has the ability by defult to utilise the colour space setting of the image, which also makes it a bit of a pain atm because when posting, you have to take into account that some may be viewing your image with FF 3.5 and some with other browsers that are not colour space managed.
I agree with Andrew, that the images do look a bit washed out, but, that shouldn't be an issue as I can clearly see you've got excellent data to work with. Your stars are awesomely pinpoint! Wish I could manage that nowadays!
Some images would be nice Duncan. 
I think Andrew means the pictures look a bit flat, but that's a processing issue. I agree with this too. Did you use any levels/curves or modified the histograms in PS?
