Howdy! Happy New Year, everyone.
I haven't had much of a chance for imaging lately(or much else), so I have done a reproccess on an M42 and surrounds image that isn't quite right in a lot of ways, but has some merit, so I thought I would share it, as my contribution to the growing list of very great M42 images.
I proccessed this image on a monitor that was calibrated with a Spyder 3.
I would love some good feedback on this one, including colour and brightness, as one of my goals this year is to be presenting better images by this time next year.
Thanks for looking.
It looks like the main nebula is floating behind a mass of cloud and we are seeing it through a sucker hole, looks cool but I fear this is not real but rather a result of your harder processng around the main nebula I think?
having not seen what is considered ( if there is one )the definitive photo of M42 it is purely an asthetic point of view. l am not as critical over astro photos as most people as l don't have the time to aspire to the high levels as people such as yourself and others but l do know what l like.
having not seen what is considered ( if there is one )the definitive photo of M42 it is purely an asthetic point of view. l am not as critical over astro photos as most people as l don't have the time to aspire to the high levels as people such as yourself and others but l do know what l like.
So of the four M42 links I posted above which one do you find most represents what you think M42 should look like?
Just interested, I agree with you, beauty is in the eye of the beholder but it is an interesting consideration
Quite a nice little discussion going on here! Thats cool, I like education!
Octane, do you think the flatness comes from layering and processing, or is it lacking in the data collection area?
with so many different representations it makes my point, how would l know what is should look like? or any of us for that matter.
l do know that l like a softer and subtle image, not necessarily just M42, but most objects, l would not think in their environment that these objects would have the hard edge to them that a lot of photos represent, they are after all mostly gas and dust, but that's just my view.
p.s. Mike, of the 4 pics you posted the last one to me would be a more real representation, the others are a product of imagination and advanced processing techniques which l am not criticising for a minute but they are too harsh in my opinion to be real, especially the David Malin version, to me asthetically it's terrible.
p.s. Mike, of the 4 pics you posted the last one to me would be a more real representation, the others are a product of imagination and advanced processing techniques which l am not criticising for a minute but they are too harsh in my opinion to be real, especially the David Malin version, to me asthetically it's terrible.
Hmm? interesting
So which of the following looks more real to you and less the result of advanced processing?
One is how Jupiter looked on film in a good shot in the 1980's the other how it looks now using modern CCD imaging and skilled processing, both taken by amateurs of similar skill in their era with SCT's.
Perhaps the advances in imaging "are" enabling us to reveal objects how they should be..?
Mike
ps Graham, that's far enough off topic I'll leave it there...now, over to your image of Orion's sword again
comparing planetary to deep space photography is two completely different things, we have close up pics of our planetary neighbours and don't need to guess what they look like. l don't knock image manipulation, l wish l was better at it myself, everyone has an idea of what they think an image should be l just like a more subtle approach and will leave it there, nice debate though.
Graham - I think its nice, although the dim dusty areas seem to have been brought up to match the brightness of the core of the nebula, then layered in, in much the same way that you would layer in the burnt trap.... It looks a little unnatural, but that said, there is nothing wrong with unnatural...
Detail and colour look ok to me, guiding and focus seem pretty sweet too..
Tell me, did you by chance happen to use GradientXterminator on this image? I've had similar final results of M42 thanks to gradientXterminator in the past... ?
[/QUOTE]ps Graham, that's far enough off topic I'll leave it there...now, over to your image of Orion's sword again [/QUOTE]
He, he, no dramas, Mike. I got something out of the volley, cheers!
Thanks guys for the chatter!
Yes, Alex, I did. I must admit that I do notice how it tends to wipe out some of the nebulosity, even at the weakest setting, but didn't really think much of it. What do you suggest? I'm not good enough at Photoshop to do gradients myself. What are Noel Carboni's tools like for that? Do you use them?
Noels tools do not have a gradient removal too (that I'm aware of) I use Noels tools for some things, and they are useful..
GradientXterminator I've found produces better results when you apply the filter, then using "Edit -> Fade" you can fade the resulting effect to a reasonable level... I've never really gotten great results from GradientXterminator, but using the Fade tool, you can generally get something workable...
Very nice Graham, You have pulled up the dirt on this one quite well.
You are definitely comming on in leaps and bounds with this new camera.
Well done.
