M16 the way it should be ..... hopefully - Page 2

Alchemy (Clive) · #21 31-08-2008, 07:50 AM

up earlyish this morning, no need to sleep in as it was cloudy last night (whats new about the clouds

)

Dennis, Alex, Winesky, thanks for looking and revisiting.

Ive been provoked by strongman mike to enter next years Malins (right so now we get serious)..... so you lot are my guinea pigs for new ideas, depending on the response i may or may not use them. Got a lot more to learn but its been interesting so far

Thanks all for your replies, i read each and every one, although to give a detailed reply to each would clog up the thread, THANKS FOR LOOKING

rat156 · #22 31-08-2008, 08:26 AM

Hi Clive,

I see what you mean regarding the crop. I didn't realise you had cropped and blown the image up. That has something to do with the un-natural looking stars. I actually like the unprocessed version better, which even cropped and blown up looks about right, to me that is. You know some of those stars will actually appear white, in your coloured version the yellow/golden stars look OK, but the blue ones just seem out of place.

This is only my opinion though, image processing is art, it's your interpretation of the object, not a photograph.

Glad to hear that you can take a little constructive critisism, that's the main reason I post pics, so others can tell me what I've done wrong. Although the "Nice" comments are nice to hear, someone pointing out an error (real or perceived) is helpful.

Cheers
Stuart

strongmanmike (Michael) · #23 31-08-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Ive been provoked by strongman mike to enter next years Malins (right so now we get serious).

.....

spearo (Frank) · #24 31-08-2008, 02:22 PM

wow!
very impressive, love the detail of the Pillars.
Great work!
frank

bluescope · #25 31-08-2008, 02:38 PM

I think most people would be happy with any of the images you have posted Clive, great work.

As regards monitors .... most of us probably have LCD's nowadays either with Laptops or as "upgrades" to the old CRT's but I think a good high res CRT takes a lot of beating for image processing. LCD's are very positional i.e. you have to view them straight on, if that makes sense. I have a 19 inch CRT that I used for my landscape photography for years and I think I will resurrect it when I move to my dark sky location next year ... there simply isn't enough space to have it setup where I am currently living. LCD's look cool and take up little space but I think they are best used in offices and shops where reflections are a major problem. I have probably stirred up an ants nest now but there you go

.

Hey, I have 2 laptops and a 20" LCD on my old desktop but a 17" CRT in my observatory. However my TV is a Panasonic 50" HD Plasma

. They all have there pros and cons ..... but I love my Plasma

.

Alchemy (Clive) · #26 31-08-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

This is only my opinion though, image processing is art, it's your interpretation of the object, not a photograph.

yes stuart i guess thats about it, but thanks for putting up your image for the consideration, and allowing us a close up look at what youve done.

Quote:

very impressive, love the detail of the Pillars.
Great work!
frank

thanks frank, the pillars had a certain amount of processing done on them that was not applied to the rest of the image, particularly sharpening/contrast routines, which against the soft background , help it stand out.

Quote:

As regards monitors .... most of us probably have LCD's nowadays either with Laptops or as "upgrades" to the old CRT's but I think a good high res CRT takes a lot of beating for image processing. LCD's are very positional i.e. you have to view them straight on, if that makes sense.......I have probably stirred up an ants nest now but there you go

Actually i have heard this many times so i wont disagree with you, there are some like the EZIO that are made for image processing though, (i bought a cheaper item). i have noticed you dont have to be much off square for it to make a difference, and have adjusted mine to eye level height. ..... i wonder if you could use the 50 inch hooked up as a monitor

and finally mike...... yep going to have to have a go,

Question ......does a bunch of narrow fields stitched together = a wide field ?,

i need to find a link to inspect the entry rules and catagories.

strongmanmike (Michael) · #27 31-08-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

and finally mike...... yep going to have to have a go,

good on ya Jedi Clive

Quote:

Question ......does a bunch of narrow fields stitched together = a wide field ?,

i need to find a link to inspect the entry rules and catagories.

I think you will find that with the DM's if you used a dedicated "telescope" for your entry it is clasified as Deep Sky regardless of the FOV. If you used a camera lens it is then clasified as wide field. John and David would most likely adjust categories for you based on the equipment used as stated on your entry form?

You are quite right to think about this though and I had this discussion with Jase, if someone was to do say an 18 frame mozaic of Eta Carina using a 6" telescope this would indeed be a wide field to most but per the rules since it was done using a telescope it is in the Deep Sky category ..

..

Mike

AlexN · #28 31-08-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alchemy

i wonder if you could use the 50 inch hooked up as a monitor

I use my Sony 52" HD LCD as my main computers monitor... As a matter of fact, since buying it, its only actually had to display a TV channel for about 20 minutes.... its been connected to the PC for nearly 7 months straight... Once you hook it up "just as a test... " you never go back... I since sold my 2x 20" Samsung monitors...

bluescope · #29 31-08-2008, 07:48 PM

"wonder if you could use the 50 inch hooked up as a monitor

"

Actually it does have a PC connection but I have yet to try it ... probably look good.

gregbradley · #30 31-08-2008, 07:50 PM

Wonderful image of what I think is a rather hard object.

Greg.

AlexN · #31 31-08-2008, 07:51 PM

I can tell you right now - Looking at all the insanely good high res deep space images on here / apod etc is pure GOLD with a 52".. GOLD I TELLS YA!!!

jase (Jason) · #32 01-09-2008, 04:19 PM

Nice repro Clive. It looks on the money. You need to reprocess a few more to get a feel for how well you're managing the stellar profiles. Some images a harder than others to bring the star saturation back or under control.

Alchemy (Clive) · #33 01-09-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jase

Nice repro Clive. It looks on the money. You need to reprocess a few more to get a feel for how well you're managing the stellar profiles. Some images a harder than others to bring the star saturation back or under control.

thanks jase, im armed with some info regarding this now so will take a closer look at the profiles in the future. Now that i have a better monitor am reprocessing a few items so will post one or two in due course.

Thanks Greg for looking.

------------------------------------------------------------

time to let someone else have a go so my last reply for this thread

cheers clive.

Hagar (Doug) · #34 01-09-2008, 10:45 PM

Very Nice Clive. Definite overall improvement. Money well spent.