Lagoon fresh process

[Paul Haese]

After staring at the old image for several weeks I decided this data deserved another process. Now probably not to everyones taste but I like this. It looks more like what I was expecting from this object.

Click here for image

Comment and tell me what you think.

Regards

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

The main nebula looks great but the rest looks just a little out of place and doesn't quite go of course as you suggest there are no hard a fast rules here Paul.

Well done on the reprocess effort though, never say never I say

Mike

[Octane (Humayun)]

Paul,

What have you done?

The background looks clipped and the nebula looks like it's a flashing neon sign.

Bring back the old images, I say.

H

[luigi]

I love it, the colour and the detail is fantastic.

I think it can look incredible if you print in transparency and retro-illuminate a big print of this work.

Great image (to my eyes)

[Paul Haese]

Ok I sorted out the background clipping. Any other comments? I am just trying to get the best image of this object that I can. So far this is about 25 masks on this image.

I don't think this looks as plastic as the previous version. I have attached a copy of it for those that want to compare and included the link here again.

Click here

[Paul Haese]

I backed off the fluro for H too.

[renormalised (Carl)]

That's better, Paul. The fluoro one was a little too plastic and a bit too bright. This "Sid" is much better, looks more natural

[gregbradley]

Hi Paul, You seem to be struggling with this one. With your other images the processing seemed easier.

If you follow the philosophy that the ideal processing makes an image look like it is natural (not everyone would follow that philosophy) then
this one has missed. It has a distinct artificial look. Also perhaps a too solid look for a nebula.

I also believe (rightly or wrongly) that the best images are the ones where the least processing was done because the data was so good. The worse the data the more it needs processing. The more processing, the harder to hide the fact you've been there.

If I look over some of my images I would think the same about some of them. Its easy to do.

The nebula boundaries are too sharp when in fact there would be whispy lighter nebula streaming out from the edges. Possibly also the central bright area has lost some of its landmark brightness in the bringing out of the central area detail although that may be a matter of taste and I don't mind how you've treated that.

I think where it has missed is earlier in the processing. If you did DDP then its black clipped the background quite heavily and later attempts to bring it back don't work as that data was lost early on. It results in too stark a contrast between areas of nebula and areas of no nebula. The fainter out nebula is missing and there is a fair bit of it with the Lagoon.

Also if you did deconvolution it was done too hard making the stars look a bit harsh. I personally have gone off deconvolution and feel it is a lightly done type tool at least for stars.

Having said that it is still a very striking image and I can see why you want to continue to work on it as you collected some great data. There's a great image in there. But I think you have to rebuild it from the RAW data back up again rather than Photoshop the later damaged data.

Greg.

[jase (Jason)]

Paul, not a bad effort. I would suggest removing the Ha data to give you a better idea of the correct colours and balance. The more masks you use, the harder it is to manage a smooth transition between them and the harder it is to manage the various layer effects. Helps to keep it simple. Once you know what a base RGB blend looks like from a colour perspective, try adding the Ha data again matching the original colour balance. Perhaps a different approach would deliver an improved result.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

For me personally, I'd like to see a Goldilocks version, one half way between the two.
I liked the colours in the first one and the stars in the second.

[Paul Haese]

Greg and Jase it just goes to show how far there is left to go before I can master this part of imaging. Thanks for you words of wisdom. I done a complete reprocess but fear this is not going to be much better. I love the detail and the hues but am sure it still does not look correct.

JJJ I think this might be some where inbetween for you.

I am going to give this a rest now until I can pick up 4 hours of luminence for this image. That way I can reduce the impact of the Ha.
Thanks all for the views and the comments. Much appreciated.

[Craig_L]

Hi Paul,

Great detail and colours but I wonder if it is a little 2 dimensional and not "nebulous" enough - however, wish I could come up with something like this.

[Paul Haese]

Well I took Jase's advice and started from scratch. I did less masking this time and used the data differently. I think this is a lot better than previous efforts and now looks a lot more like a nebulae than something I coloured in with crayons.

There is still some noise I cannot budge but overall I think it is getting there. I checked against a few notable astrophotographers and this seems close to the mark.

I know I have struggled with this image which I think is surprising for such a bright object, but the inclusion of the Ha data is really essential to how the image should look. I followed Rob Gendlers Tuts on this and have learnt another processing skill as a result.

If you like let me know what you think.

http://paulhaese.net/M8Lagoon.html

[gregbradley]

That looks a lot better Paul. Good on you for perservering with it.
It seems more balanced between background and nebula areas.
Its one way we progress in our processing skills.

Greg.