HDR Opinions sought example M42

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

Hi all, I was playing with some short and long subs on M42 using the D800 @iso2000, and I found that to avoid any saturation I had to shorten the subs to 20 seconds. So I played with the HDR composition tool in pixinsight this morning to combine them. First image is just the long 10min subs, with a correspondingly burnt out trapezium. Second is the HDR version showing plenty of structure everywhere. For some reason I prefer the non-HDR, despite the burnt out bits. The colour is better, and the saturated region gives me a sense of 3D and something blazing away in a cocoon of gas.
I'd be very interested to hear other's views. In the meantime, I shall try and produce something half way between the two.
cheers,
Andrew.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Agreed, Andrew. I prefer the non HDR version too.

[LewisM]

Non-HDr. HDR is way too fake IMHO on DSO's especially.

Your white balance also seems awfully blue. Should be more red in M42. Nikon seems to do this more than Canon - adjusting the white balance in a raw editor should correct a lot (click white balance or similar - not sure what Nikon uses)

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

Thanks guys - I've had a go at getting the best of both worlds.
I think the blue bias is a function of the unmodified DSLR's lack of H-alpha sensitivity and the CLS filter. I work with raw files and let pixinsight do the colour balance; I'm pretty comfortable with what it comes up with. The histograms look pretty well balanced to me, so I guess that's the data I got.
Higher res version at
http://www.astrobin.com/24986/
cheers,
Andrew.

[Ross G]

Nice shot Andrew.

I also prefer the non HDR.

It looks more "natural".

Ross.