~25% crop down of the Carina core photo I posted previously.
Was pleasantly surprised with what came out, so I thought I'd post it! Quick recap, only 3 hrs of data with cheap 7nm filters! I really dont think I could have pulled this much out of any osc data I ever processed!
Kitchen sink level of post processing required to suck the details out of original data, many may argue some artistic licence was taken
H, S and O presented in 'dynamic' rgb with O as the scaling factor.
Sorry but there's no way you can get that level of details in the keyhole and other fronts with your aperture. These are selective processing induced artefacts. I would revise your sharpening workflow.
thanks guy, but what part of "some artistic licence was taken" lends itself to "this image is 100% scientifically accurate". lol
i like that you offered some specific ideas about how to approach aggressive sharpening, and even offered an example of where you've imaged this target at this fov and demonstrated what it 'should' look like. quality.
i would be keen to read more of your opinions in blog format. can you link me the address?
thanks guy, but what part of "some artistic licence was taken" lends itself to "this image is 100% scientifically accurate". lol
i like that you offered some specific ideas about how to approach aggressive sharpening, and even offered an example of where you've imaged this target at this fov and demonstrated what it 'should' look like. quality.
i would be keen to read more of your opinions in blog format. can you link me the address?
thanks guy, but what part of "some artistic licence was taken" lends itself to "this image is 100% scientifically accurate". lol
i like that you offered some specific ideas about how to approach aggressive sharpening, and even offered an example of where you've imaged this target at this fov and demonstrated what it 'should' look like. quality.
i would be keen to read more of your opinions in blog format. can you link me the address?
Here's a very good image in broadband of the same subject with very similar gear although slightly bigger aperture. You can see the expected level of details.
If you want to compare your fine details with a good reference the HST widefield in narrowband is the one to check and you'll see what I am talking about.
I have imaged this target extensively over the years at various FL so yeah I do know that region inside out.
The only opinion I presented is that you should reprocess. The rest is just plain facts. No need for a blog. IIS posts are on the record for everyone to see and learn or discuss.
Here's a very good image in broadband of the same subject with very similar gear although slightly bigger aperture. You can see the expected level of details.
If you want to compare your fine details with a good reference the HST widefield in narrowband is the one to check and you'll see what I am talking about.
I have imaged this target extensively over the years at various FL so yeah I do know that region inside out.
The only opinion I presented is that you should reprocess. The rest is just plain facts. No need for a blog. IIS posts are on the record for everyone to see and learn or discuss.
again, what part of 'this is art' is lost on you? srsly. lol. i see some of the subtlety's of how some people use english is lost. i apologise.
also, how is comparing an image taken by a billion dollar space telescope with no atmospheric diffraction to an amateur astro setup with no adaptive optics in any way a comparable measure? lol
again, what part of 'this is art' is lost on you? srsly. lol. i see some of the subtlety's of how some people use english is lost. i apologise.
also, how is comparing an image taken by a billion dollar space telescope with no atmospheric diffraction to an amateur astro setup with no adaptive optics in any way a comparable measure? lol
I see the word "reference" is lost on you. I also apologise.
Topaz nazi sometimes misses when claiming topaz. It's entertaining and yes he is right most times
Oh well, I've used topaz suite 1 and 2 since 2007 in PS when it came out as a plugin and still do including AI for a short time but not anymore so I have no issues with topaz at all.
But every time you guys take a dump in the deepsky forums and get called on it you quickly backtrack and claim it's art. Sorry. It's not. It's sh!t.
Oh well, I've used topaz suite 1 and 2 since 2007 in PS when it came out as a plugin and still do including AI for a short time but not anymore so I have no issues with topaz at all.
But every time you guys take a dump in the deepsky forums and get called on it you quickly backtrack and claim it's art. Sorry. It's not. It's sh!t.
everything is subjective, but there are times where you yourself claim something is topaz when it isn't
I can hardly wait for your reaction with the new plugin now called Noise exterminator.
Did he get processing tips from you?
