Just got a license for GradientXterminator and did a few pictures with it after Photoshop etc. Then I did one with GradientXterminator before any other processing (after stacking with Registar).Then adjusted levels etc in PS then used GradientXterminator again.
The second pic is the same starting data but using GX last.
Don't know what is up with the GX, but you are really a master of the deep with that ED80 of yours, Bert. Such awesome images from such a little scope.
I will put up a higher resolution one tomorrow. I only have 10M of webspace. Thanks for the comment Humayun, but like most pop stars I am not an overnight success. We all start somewhere and can only get better with hard work. When I see what can be done only makes me want to learn more.
Your examples demonstrate the importance of STARTING with as flat a field as you can. That way, the stretching process doesn't enhance the faults as well as the real data. Better still is to apply flats to the subexposures to eliminate it before stacking.
with GX, when you draw around the object in Photoshop, do you select Inverse before running GX? If not then it may make the gradient worse, I found that out the hard way myself
Hope you dont mind, but I ran the 2nd pic through my GX, it seems to have smoothed out the gradient
Scott
Hi tornado33 don't mind at all. Yes I did do the inverse. The difference between the two pictures was GX before PS and PS before GX. If you want can send you the original raw frames of anything and then you can play with 73m tiffs. Aquiring the images at the best quality is hard enough but then the digital processing is a black art. Still, it keeps us off the streets and out of the pubs.
HI Bert
yep the digital processing sure is a black art often I go over old images to find I can improve them.
Yes feel free to send some Raws to tornado33@gmail.com
and I will see what I can do
I will soon be sending some of mine to Tony to see what he and Images Plus can do, it might be easier to use than Iris which is what I also use here
Scott