M8 SHO RGB StarNet

[PKay (Peter)]

A great exercise in patience.

Stats:
30 X 300s S2, Ha, O3
30 x 60s RGB

Used StarNet to remove stars from SHO and create starmask from RGB.

And then stuck them together.

I humbly ask for critique before uploading to Astrobin.

Thanks for looking

[Startrek (Martin)]

Peter,
Looks fine to me so far
Cant help you with your software processing or techniques
Startools only as you know
Hope some others pass comment
Cheers
M.

[PKay (Peter)]

Thanks M

Trying new processing techniques, some work, some don't...

https://www.astrobin.com/full/3plkfa/0/

NB: It's very clear tonight.

[multiweb (Marc)]

That last process is really nice.

[PKay (Peter)]

Thanx Marc

Have reached a turning point and what is the way?

I can now, using photoshop (masking) turn anything into anything.
Add blue nebulosity where there is none etc (I have not done that with this image).
Such techniques and you enter the realm of 'AstroArt'.
I don't have a problem with making pretty pictures, but unless the artist specifically states that the image is 'enhanced', it can be very misleading to others trying to replicate the scene.
Personally I have spent hours trying to capture a blue field, to find out there isn't one.

Live and learn

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by PKay

Have reached a turning point and what is the way?

I usually look for stellar profiles and fine details in a picture depending on the image scale. If the stars are right the rest follows and falls in place.

I don't particularly like the practice of removing stars, sharpening/noise reducing the neb then plonking the stars back. It usually makes soft muted stars and/or rings and artefacts around the bright ones.

As far as as arbitrarily weighting colour channels to suit I think that's total BS. It becomes an interpretation and I have no interest in arty astro stuff.

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I don't particularly like the practice of removing stars, sharpening/noise reducing the neb then plonking the stars back. It usually makes soft muted stars and/or rings and artefacts around the bright ones.

That's because it isn't done properly, when done well you would not even notice

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

That's because it isn't done properly, when done well you would not even notice

Maybe. But good data has too many stars and background galaxies, clusters for any star removal software to handle correctly. Good data displays everything at the same level. No picking and choosing. That's what makes a shot shine. Not the lipstick. You want to see more. You go deeper.

[PKay (Peter)]

Good thoughts Marc.

Sculptor rises at midnight.

I will try and present it as 'clean as a whistle'.

That's the go...

[SecretSquirrel (Shane)]

Wow, that is impressive

[PKay (Peter)]

Thanks Shane!