Centaurus A...wha tha???

strongmanmike (Michael) · #1 17-01-2009, 09:35 AM

Don't crusify me, you can blame this repro on Frank Bonneville, he described a technique to darken backgrounds so juuuuust for fun, I had a play with it and after playing with his description, plus a couple of other tweeks, here is another version of that now infamous Centaurus A ultra deep field

(crop from full frame image)

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...05041/original

Not necessarily better but slightly different..?

On ya guys

Mike
ducking for cover

Hagar (Doug) · #2 17-01-2009, 09:48 AM

No Crucifiction the cross is broken.

Yes the background has been darkened a little but I really don't think it makes any real improvement to the image. In fact if anything it tends to detract from the galaxy dust lanes me thinks. It almost makes the dust lanes blend into the illuminated sphere of the galaxy.

Don't know.

Garyh · #3 17-01-2009, 10:00 AM

ohh no Mike not another repro

....Just kidding! doesn`t bother me to see what one can do with new techniques picked up! Anyways I`m gonna post another M42 image again...

Don`t know if it`s better but I think it shows the fainter extended area`s just a bit better....

Have had plenty of crap weather to repro images lately..

cheers Gary

JohnG (John) · #4 17-01-2009, 10:59 AM

Looks all right to me, Mike, the outer halo seems to show up a little better, great image though

Cheers

renormalised (Carl) · #5 17-01-2009, 11:04 AM

Repro, repro, repro....aaarrggh!!!

You can repro that image all you like, Mike. It's more than worth it

richardo (Rich) · #6 17-01-2009, 11:40 AM

Goldarnit man, can't leave well enough alone.... had to repro... didn't you

Well I love looking at this image with it's very finely resolve stars and detail.

The new repro has the core less brighter, stars have a little more colour and the background is just right.
I think it's a winner over the original IMHO.

Now don't touch it...... it really is prefect.

Well done son

But then again my 47 year old eyes are starting to fail me

Now go find another image for a repro

All the best
Rich

strongmanmike (Michael) · #7 17-01-2009, 05:47 PM

Thanks for having your latest look at this data set guys.

Doug was right though, the lane in the previous verison did blend slightly too much into the glow of the galaxy, so I have tried to better define the dust lane and also reveal that the huge halo is not a uniform spherical glow but has distinct shells and large scale dark patchy structures:

Sized to fit perfectly on a 21" moniter in full screen mode - press F11 (2.6meg):

http://upload.pbase.com/strongmanmik...05041/original

Cheers

Mike
....still love playing with this data

spearo (Frank) · #8 17-01-2009, 06:43 PM

Mike ,
They should have published THIS one ....

I can't quite believe you're taking processing advice from the likes of me but if it helped I'm honored. I'll be glad to receive my signed dedicated printed copy!

It's an amazing image
(and don't worry, I'm used to being blamed for everything...)

frank

strongmanmike (Michael) · #9 17-01-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spearo

Mike ,
They should have published THIS one ....

I can't quite believe you're taking processing advice from the likes of me but if it helped I'm honored. I'll be glad to receive my signed dedicated printed copy!

It's an amazing image
(and don't worry, I'm used to being blamed for everything...)

frank

Hi Franky

The version of this image AS&T published in October last year had been pushed and modified (by me) to hopefully have the very faint cirrus dust show through after the magazine printing process, which seriously darkens images and faint nebulosity, unfortunately I overcompensated and the printed result in the mag wasn't very good

it looked much better on the screen

. Luckily the version travelling with the David Malin Awards exhibition and how it appears on my web site, on the screen, are much better

Regarding processing abilities, hey, I do things pretty simple compared to many but every now and then something catches my eye that seems useful and I try it, your simple technique sounded good and when I tried it I was pleasantly surprised with what it did and I will likely use it more in the future...so thankyou!

Mike

spearo (Frank) · #10 17-01-2009, 07:31 PM

Made my week Mike!

frank

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Hi Franky

The version of this image AS&T published in October last year had been pushed and modified (by me) to hopefully have the very faint cirrus dust show through after the magazine printing process, which seriously darkens images and faint nebulosity, unfortunately I overcompensated and the printed result in the mag wasn't very good

it looked much better on the screen

. Luckily the version travelling with the David Malin Awards exhibition and how it appears on my web site, on the screen, are much better

Regarding processing abilities, hey, I do things pretty simple compared to many but every now and then something catches my eye that seems useful and I try it, your simple technique sounded good and when I tried it I was pleasantly surprised with what it did and I will likely use it more in the future...so thankyou!

Mike

jase (Jason) · #11 17-01-2009, 08:55 PM

Not bad Mike. Think I'll have to agree with your statement that its not necessarily better but slightly different. Still, I like it...even if its another repro.

bloodhound31 · #12 17-01-2009, 10:59 PM

Like it....like it a lot! Now leave it alone!

Baz.

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #13 17-01-2009, 11:21 PM

Nice Mike.

Hey - if you want to proof any photos before they go to press in a magazine Mike, send 'em to me and I'll print them on out 3DAP-compliant proofer for you. This machine is set up to exactly duplicate the press characteristics for ACP and Pacific Publications, but it's very close to an average mag anywhere. We spent ages gaining profile certification for this device and it's a ripper when it comes to seeing how something WILL look on press.

gregbradley · #14 18-01-2009, 12:59 PM

Yes that last version seems to be just perfect.

Whats the technique for making the background a bit darker?

My brother in law works in press and he gave me some tips about how to prepare an image for printing.

Has to do with the dot size in printing.

Greg.

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #15 18-01-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Yes that last version seems to be just perfect.

Whats the technique for making the background a bit darker?

My brother in law works in press and he gave me some tips about how to prepare an image for printing.

Has to do with the dot size in printing.

Greg.

"Dot gain" - depending on the paper, ink will spread into the substrate at different rates before its surface tension overcomes the capilliary action before it dries. Newspaper is like printng on toilet paper, where a placed dot will gain quite a bit in area before it dries. Gloss stock is less prone. The problem comes when dots on the paper grow in size relative to adjacent dots within the CMYK rosette, muddying the image. Remember that print does not use the RGB colour model either - it's converted to CMYK first. Good proofing simulates these tendencies and gives you a very accurate result. Web offset presses aren't just large ink-jet printers......

atalas · #16 19-01-2009, 06:21 PM

It's a beauty !