Due to the lack of clear skies, I searched through old data again and had another go at the Tarantula.
My goal was to make processing less invasive to the data, that is I tried to make the nebula look more natural/less processed, apart from arbitrary colours of course. I was hoping to show more of the fainter details.
Slawomir, you have presented two pretty good images.
The new one has much sharper detail in the reds and darker blues, as well as more apparent nebula detail on the left edge of the photo. It's really good in fact; but still, it has lost something in the central blues. The appearance of depth is reduced, and there is an appearance of mild over-exposure in the heart of the blues.
BUT; it's not unattractive for all that, and if it was the only version I had seen I would have applauded loudly.
Keep playing with the data because there is obviously a lot there to be fiddled with.
I totally agree that the old version had more depth and also better colours, while the new one is sharper and I feel it also looks less processed. Now I just need to learn how to reliably combine the best from both images
Hi Slawiomir. I haven't seen your first go at this yet, so I can't compare, but this is a great shot. Judging by the comments if your original is better than this, it must be a beauty.
LOL, I will need to write it down (Lewis Version).
Actually, the first one is over processed as I overdid noise reduction and it resulted in blurring of fine detail. The latest versions have minimal noise reduction, that's why I was happy to see finer structures being sharper.
I guess the original version (which was by the way my 7th attempt at that data) has better overall balance that more pleases the eye
Anyway, having a go at the same data about 10 times, over six months, have taught me a lot. And everyone's feedback has been vital in my learning - HUGE thank you
You've done well Slawomir. I think this is one of the more complex nebulae to process with is high dynamic range. Hard to pick between the various renditions you have presented. All are great with each showing something subtly different. Somewhere in between rendition E and F is perhaps the sweet spot to my eyes, but if you keep listening to us you will end up with rendition Z in no time. Can't please everyone. Looking forward to seeing more.
Send me your data and you have a benchmark for absurdity
(seriously, I would love to have a crack at it if you are willing to share it or the Running Chook)
Looking forward to seeing famous Levis Version PM sent
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghsmith45
Both good, but I have to pitch my vote for the first one.
Geoff
Thank you Geoff. Honestly, I like the first version too, but prefer to keep developing processing techniques that preserve detail, do not introduce artefacts and do not distort data in other ways than simply skilfully modifying wide dynamic ranges, adjusting the colours and appropriately controlling noise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
I like the 2nd one more. Its more vibrant and even more 3D.
Great images you have there hard to choose which is best ,one of the better of have seen of that tangled region ,what did you take this with and your times etc
ALAN
I think I will add more data first, when the spider will be up at night again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan meehan
Great images you have there hard to choose which is best ,one of the better of have seen of that tangled region ,what did you take this with and your times etc
ALAN
Thanks Alan. Funny you said that, because it is a balcony shot from inner city (Brisbane)
When you click on the image it will take you to the screen with all the details. Otherwise the info is here: http://www.astrobin.com/141358/F/
Sorry to come so late to this - missed the new version. When Trish and I zoom really close in on both versions, we notice that the smallest detail looked blocky and pixellated on the old version. Checking the file sizes we see that the old version was 1200 wide, whereas the new was (justifiably) 1800 or so wide, and about three times the file size. To us the biggest improvement in the new version is that you've quite justifiably published it bigger, so we can actually see all your good work !
We agree with others that the spider itself is brighter and less contrasty in the new version, but not importantly so. Both B4 and after are great pieces of work.
