Mikey... I love the detail. Not fussed on the colours. Maybe I have no taste Great to see you're getting some images. It seems to have been raining here ever since I started playing with the collimation on my AG12. Wonder if I can use the rainfall data to tell me how accurate it is?
Singing or listening? I'll do both for a clear night....
Oh singing mate, singing!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Mikey... I love the detail. Not fussed on the colours. Maybe I have no taste Great to see you're getting some images. It seems to have been raining here ever since I started playing with the collimation on my AG12. Wonder if I can use the rainfall data to tell me how accurate it is?
Cheers,
Rick.
...yep no taste ...ah sigh...narrowband imaging...it's like wallpaper..locked in the 70's
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc4darkskies
Yes it does!
Cool buddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by seeker372011
Very nice. Don't recall ever seeing this in this palette...makes you look at an old favourite with a completely different perspective.
Great work. As usual. Thanks for sharing
Glad you found it..?...different Narayan, Eta Carina can get boring...
I enjoyed looking at this one, but with that kind of investment in imaging gear, invest an extra tiny percentage of that into one of these: http://www.imagescience.com.au/produ...FSExpgodrHEARw
It is a pittance compared to the spend on camera/filters/scopes etc. but without it, we may as well have cheapo filters as we aren't getting the best out of our imaging. It can also calibrate your TV/projector etc.
Without monitor calibration, imaging processing is a somewhat random exercise. I reckon a colourimeter should be the first purchase after you buy a camera. People spend so much chasing optical perfection, it's worth spending a tiny bit more to make sure you are seeing the results of all that work in their true colours.
Nice image Mike; great details and I like the colour scheme! Note that I am talking about NGC 3324, not the photoshop of you and Marcus at the ice skating - I may need therapy after seeing that one ...
I enjoyed looking at this one, but with that kind of investment in imaging gear, invest an extra tiny percentage of that into one of these: http://www.imagescience.com.au/produ...FSExpgodrHEARw
It is a pittance compared to the spend on camera/filters/scopes etc. but without it, we may as well have cheapo filters as we aren't getting the best out of our imaging. It can also calibrate your TV/projector etc.
Without monitor calibration, imaging processing is a somewhat random exercise. I reckon a colourimeter should be the first purchase after you buy a camera. People spend so much chasing optical perfection, it's worth spending a tiny bit more to make sure you are seeing the results of all that work in their true colours.
Yes it looks interesting and may be worth a try. Thing is my last 22" Samsung monitor was a cracker and seemed to produce the goods without any adjustments what so ever, as Phil Hart once commented in a thread about monitor calibration here on IIS... with words to the effect "Looking at your images Mike, you don't have to worry about monitor calibration mate" I'll take a Phil Hart assessment over a digital gadget any day
At the moment however and after the above monitor gave up the ghost late last year, after 6 years of faithful service, I am using a cheap small digital TV and I don't think it is optimally calibrated, particularly in dynamic range/contrast..?
I plan to get a new monitor at some stage reasonably soon, in teh meantime I will try and just gauge the crowd response
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita
Nah mate, the 60s!
Man that looks awesome dude, I really dig it, far out it's making me feel so groovy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Fitz-Henr
Nice image Mike; great details and I like the colour scheme! Note that I am talking about NGC 3324, not the photoshop of you and Marcus at the ice skating - I may need therapy after seeing that one ...
Wha tha? What you talking about Willis?? no I'm not sleeping with him....?...
Yes it looks interesting and may be worth a try. Thing is my last 22" Samsung monitor was a cracker and seemed to produce the goods without any adjustments what so ever, as Phil Hart once commented in a thread about monitor calibration here on IIS... with words to the effect "Looking at your images Mike, you don't have to worry about monitor calibration mate" I'll take a Phil Hart assessment over a digital gadget any day
At the moment however and after the above monitor gave up the ghost late last year, after 6 years of faithful service, I am using a cheap small digital TV and I don't think it is optimally calibrated, particularly in dynamic range/contrast..?
I plan to get a new monitor at some stage reasonably soon, in teh meantime I will try and just gauge the crowd response
Mike
Poita.. as Mike says I am really happy with my Dell U2410 monitor which I've had for awhile now. With a *quality* monitor like this, you can use one of the factory calibration settings and expect good results without further calibration hardware. If you're doing print production work, then it might be worth going down that route. If you have a cheap monitor, then you have a cheap monitor.
If you look at the levels for this image, the black point could definitely be tightened up (see attached). Hope that helps!
Actually when you look at the full image (rather than the original IIS attachment) the amount of black correction needed is much less.. but still needs a little. In Photoshop I reckon it needs the black point shifted up 10-15 on the histogram.
Poita.. as Mike says I am really happy with my Dell U2410 monitor which I've had for awhile now. With a *quality* monitor like this, you can use one of the factory calibration settings and expect good results without further calibration hardware. If you're doing print production work, then it might be worth going down that route. If you have a cheap monitor, then you have a cheap monitor.
If you look at the levels for this image, the black point could definitely be tightened up (see attached). Hope that helps!
Phil
Quote:
Originally Posted by philiphart
Actually when you look at the full image (rather than the original IIS attachment) the amount of black correction needed is much less.. but still needs a little. In Photoshop I reckon it needs the black point shifted up 10-15 on the histogram.
Cheers for that Calibrator Phil ...
See? that version you reworked definitely looks clipped on my screen, soooo the images I have been posting since having this monitor must have looked quite white and washed out on some screens ...Hmmm? what to do...? This image (like many of my NB work) has been absolutely loved by some, even had the comment "your best image yet" ?? while others haven't liked it so much so monitors and personal taste are clearly at play here ...bloody narrowband...
Mike
Last edited by strongmanmike; 22-02-2013 at 04:23 PM.
See? that version you reworked definitely looks clipped on my screen, soooo the images I have been posting since having this monitor must have looked quite white and washed out on soem screens ...Hmmm? what do do...? This image (like many of my NB work) has been absolutely loved by some, even had the comment "your best image yet" ?? while others haven't liked it so much so monitors and personal taste are clearly at play here ...bloody narrowband...
Mike
Attached image shows the Levels dialog in Photoshop for your full image. The histogram does not touch the black edge and the 'hump' is quite shifted to the right. On a good quality monitor, that should look a little 'grey' even in the darkest parts.
Pushing the black point up 10 is about right, but even up to 20 does not actually clip much data but the image does start to look a little clipped. It might ideally be done with a curves adjustment to spread out the dark end rather than a fairly crude levels adjustment.
Lots of monitors cannot display full range of blacks/whites and so display many images as clipped in either or both ends.
On my main monitor I can (just) see every step on both the white and black test charts. But on my crummy netbook screen, I cannot see anything in the bottom half of both test charts.
Attached image shows the Levels dialog in Photoshop for your full image. The histogram does not touch the black edge and the 'hump' is quite shifted to the right. On a good quality monitor, that should look a little 'grey' even in the darkest parts.
Pushing the black point up 10 is about right, but even up to 20 does not actually clip much data but the image does start to look a little clipped. It might ideally be done with a curves adjustment to spread out the dark end rather than a fairly crude levels adjustment.
Lots of monitors cannot display full range of blacks/whites and so display many images as clipped in either or both ends.
On my main monitor I can (just) see every step on both the white and black test charts. But on my crummy netbook screen, I cannot see anything in the bottom half of both test charts.
Phil
Yeh, I knew that but it is hard to leave it looking clipped on my monitor, so I just processed it to look ok to me here
If it helps Mike on my 30'' monitor that is IPS and calibrated the etherial clarity of the dust clouds are quite striking. My data in comparison looks like it was taken through an intervening fog.
Yeh, I knew that but it is hard to leave it looking clipped on my monitor, so I just processed it to look ok to me here
Mike
Yep, histograms don't lie Mike and it's clear you need a new monitor!
My 2c: Even though I did say your contrast was understated in my joking response, we are almost in personal taste territory here anyway. After all there are a few folks in this forum that like the "misty" look. With so much tonal range in the neb thoughout the image, the nuance of variation at the dark end will be hard to discern in anything but a darkened room on a perfect monitor if you are ruthless about levelling the histograms. So, is that what you should do? Depends on the subject matter and your taste and whether you're catering for those with "perfect" monitors. For a small galaxy in a sea of black space it makes sense (because you may not want the space to appear grey), but for a neb whose dynamic range is large across the frame it may not make sense because your eye may not perceive the tonal subtelties you want people to see at the dark end. EG: can you see the difference between the background and 1 & 2 in http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php . Now imagine if 1 & 2 were surrounded by brighter areas, would you be able to differentiate them?
It's all debateable I know, but do get a new monitor so you can make the decision and not your monitor!
Yep, histograms don't lie Mike and it's clear you need a new monitor!
...
It's all debateable I know, but do get a new monitor so you can make the decision and not your monitor!
I agree with Marcus!
There is a danger that many people viewing on crummy monitors will miss the faint stuff so being a little conservative on black point is ok but still time for you to replace the nice monitor that went kaput..
Difficult to see the effect wind had on the final image, well done. The composition is very nice, and the resolution of the system is very good; especially considering those detailed cropped sub-frames.
welcome anytime Mario, you ok with Opera? 
Great to see you're getting some images. It seems to have been raining here ever since I started playing with the collimation on my AG12. Wonder if I can use the rainfall data to tell me how accurate it is? 
no I'm not sleeping with him....?...
...Hmmm? what to do...? This image (like many of my NB work) has been absolutely loved by some, even had the comment "your best image yet" ?? 
so monitors and personal taste are clearly at play here 
