Bit hard to tell at that resolution but #1 seems to show more details although #2 stars are much smoother and colorful. I'd go with #1 though. Very nice pic btw.
hi Barry, l'm no expert but is something wrong? 15.5 hours, l just cannot see the info l would expect from that sort of exposure length.
l hope someone can enlighten me, btw l prefer the first.
hi Barry, l'm no expert but is something wrong? 15.5 hours, l just cannot see the info l would expect from that sort of exposure length.
l hope someone can enlighten me, btw l prefer the first.
I would be very happy if someone would come over and show me how to process properly.
Hi Baz, My vote goes to Maxim. The maxim image has resolved the star field much better but I would assume this is a processing anomally. The background in both could do with some work to remove colour tints.
As the image goes, you have captured an awful lot of detail and nebulosity but 15hrs should resolve it all well.
Great stuff Barry and you get my vote for dedication, 15hrs WOW.
Interesting comparison - never call me a fence sitter BUT The star field looks better in Maxim but I do have a liking for the subdued nebula in the other - My taste in colour intensity is pretty unique but as reflected by my images - so ignore my opinion. The second almost looks like its had a min filter run over it and the other hasnt.
But mate 15 hours sure you haven't wasted your time - 14.5 might have done just fine
l may not have got across what l was really trying to say, l would be interested in a reprocess by someone a little more advanced in that area because l would assume there is a lot more in there. maybe ask and someone will have a crack.
Hi Barry a lot of hrs worth there,i think myself 15 hrs is probably to much not that it shows in the image maybe more processing is the answer .how come you did not do flats maybe that would have helped,anyway good effort there.
ALAN
What's with the framing? I'm pretty sure you could have fit the beautiful M21 in there, as well?
My eyes tell me that half-n-half would go quite well, actually.
H
I tried mate, but I can't get them both in with the ED 120. I can with the ED80 though. Besides, everyone frames in the middle. I dare to be different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Bit hard to tell at that resolution but #1 seems to show more details although #2 stars are much smoother and colorful. I'd go with #1 though. Very nice pic btw.
Thanks Marc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar
Hi Baz, My vote goes to Maxim. The maxim image has resolved the star field much better but I would assume this is a processing anomally. The background in both could do with some work to remove colour tints.
As the image goes, you have captured an awful lot of detail and nebulosity but 15hrs should resolve it all well.
Great stuff Barry and you get my vote for dedication, 15hrs WOW.
Different having a poll on an image, Novel idea.
I actually thought that 15 and a half would have brought out a lot more detail and nebulosity myself. I'm a bit dissapointed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecasterguru
Barry,
First class effort. Personaly I would have to say that the first image is much brighter but the second image is more pleasing to my eyes.
Frank
Thanks Frank
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolts_Tweed
Gday Barry
Interesting comparison - never call me a fence sitter BUT The star field looks better in Maxim but I do have a liking for the subdued nebula in the other - My taste in colour intensity is pretty unique but as reflected by my images - so ignore my opinion. The second almost looks like its had a min filter run over it and the other hasnt.
But mate 15 hours sure you haven't wasted your time - 14.5 might have done just fine
Congrats on the dedication and image mate
Mark Bolton
Thanks you Mark. My processing really needs a tune up. I am sure with this data it could be a masterpiece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
I like the 2nd one. What was the camera and scope?
Greg.
Hey Greg, it was a Black Diamond ED120 and the Orion Starshoot Pro III colour CCD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mick pinner
l may not have got across what l was really trying to say, l would be interested in a reprocess by someone a little more advanced in that area because l would assume there is a lot more in there. maybe ask and someone will have a crack.
I've sent subs to people before and got nothing out of it mate. I need training so I can get better at it, not see how good someone else is. I think I might go see my friend and astrophotography mentor, Steve Crouch one of these days. I haven't paid him a visit in a few months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan meehan
Hi Barry a lot of hrs worth there,i think myself 15 hrs is probably to much not that it shows in the image maybe more processing is the answer .how come you did not do flats maybe that would have helped,anyway good effort there.
ALAN
I just got lazy. I will probably grab some flats later and reprocess though. You may be onto something there. Five nights could have been five pretty reasonable targets, instead of one slightly better one for all that effort.
Thanks everyone for your comments and input. Believe it or not it helps a little.
That's looking a lot better (to my eyes) in the large format.
One thing I personally would like to see is a little bit more saturation. Try adding 20% or 30% saturation to the image. If it looks horrible, back off on the saturation until it stops looking overdone.
I'm not sure if the software you're using allows you to make selections (I would assume it does). Instead of applying the saturation to the entire image, try selecting the nebulae regions only. See how you go with that.
Actually, Baz, I like #1. They both have the same amount of data and detail in each pic, however the first pic is brighter and brings out the details a lot more
Nice image baz, if you want to do a bit of learning, jump on Ken Crawfords site, he has a miriad of great tutorials, Step by Step and very comprehensive! that will give you a few tools to make things work a bit nicer.!
Hi Baz, I have had a bit of a fiddle with your image and it may be a bit too much for your eyes.
This is a reasonably easy adjustment with Photoshop and should be capable using most photo manipulation software.
1. Increase the colour saturation selectively in the red and blue.
2. Stretch the image a little bit more. Just a little.
3. Align all three colours in the histogram.
4. Back the green off a tiny amount in curves (Micro adjustment)
5. Select and desaturate the big blue star to help reduce the reflection halo.
6. Selective sharpen on the edges of the nebula (See Ken Crawford's tutorials) they are great.
You can always tone it down a bit. Image2.
Hope this helps a bit Barry.
Good luck with it all.
Hey thanks guys! Doug, I'm looking into your suggestions now.
Personally though, I think we have all got used to very bright and colorful nebulae. Is it better to saturate so much, or leave the colours a little milder to look more realistic?
What's the general consensus?
Last edited by bloodhound31; 20-05-2010 at 09:34 AM.
