M83, different processing and more data

[E_ri_k (Erik)]

Hey guys. I have added more data to my M83, which now makes 7 Hours. I processed differently to last time. (Thanks RickS and Richard for helping me see where I went wrong!)

I'm not sure which I prefer. What are your opinions/feedback?

Erik

[bloodhound31]

Second one mate. Brilliant.

Baz.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Yes, the second one. Great work!

[RickS (Rick)]

Great stuff, Erik! I vote for #2 as well.

[alpal]

The first one has more detail in the galaxy but
the second one has a better background.

That data is so sharp that it's worth reprocessing.

[allan gould]

Second image for me but what was your processing regime?
Allan

[prokyon (Werner Probst)]

Great work, I prefer number one. The 2nd one has too much contrast I would say.

[E_ri_k (Erik)]

Originally Posted by bloodhound31

Second one mate. Brilliant.
Baz.

Thanks Baz. The second is the one with more data.

Originally Posted by Larryp

Yes, the second one. Great work!

Thanks Laurie.

Originally Posted by RickS

Great stuff, Erik! I vote for #2 as well.

Thanks Rick

Originally Posted by alpal

The first one has more detail in the galaxy but
the second one has a better background.

That data is so sharp that it's worth reprocessing.

Yeah, I think I over sharpened the first one. I can't seem to pull more detail out of the second one with out making it look crappy. Probably worth another go.

Originally Posted by allan gould

Second image for me but what was your processing regime?
Allan

Thanks Allan. I ran DBE, ColourCalibration, Levels, Curves, LHE, Saturation boost, boosted the CIE c* component a little, ACDNR, and a slight unsharp mask. All on the light. Think I backed the levels off a bit on the background.

Originally Posted by prokyon

Great work, I prefer number one. The 2nd one has too much contrast I would say.

If I could bend the two maybe. I know what you mean, but I think it's a bit over sharpened, and grainy.

Thanks for looking everyone

Erik

[Alchemy (Clive)]

I prefer the first for the extra detail in the galaxy, however the stars are crunchy, ( perhaps in part to the small JPG file), but I found when I used deconvolution routines, I duplicated the image, did the decon on that, then used the original to copy the nice stars back in, best of both worlds that way.

I'm sure you could find a way to blend the 2 images to get the best of both.

[Meru (Michael)]

I prefer the second!

[ChrisM]

I also vote for #2, mainly due to the background composition and contrast.

A great result Erik.

Chris

[tilbrook@rbe.ne (Justin Tilbrook)]

Hi Erik,

Both are good, but it's 1 for me.
Stars seem a little less distracting.

Cheers,

Justin.

[Ross G]

Great looking photos Erik.

I prefer the first one.


Ross.

[DavidNg (David)]

Great images Erik, I'll go for the second one.

[graham.hobart (Graham stevens)]

Both excellent Eric, I like 2 though because of the background.
Love them both really.

[Shiraz (Ray)]

nice work Erik. like both, but prefer the first one.

[E_ri_k (Erik)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

nice work Erik. like both, but prefer the first one.

Thanks Ray I can't decide, a bit of a blend would be good maybe?
Erik

[Leonardo70 (Leonardo Orazi)]

Really nice Erik. Second one are better for me.

Leo