 #... |
|---|
|
In my typical fashion I have generated quite a few versions of this image. Also in typical fashion, there is little response to judge. I am left to my own observations and I am torn between the following 2 versions. I like them both for different reasons--and I waffle between them each time I try and decide. Its important to me to choose one, so that I may move on to my next project. It may seem like quibbling upon first glance, but if you blink between the two there are some very obvious differences. Anyway--Thanks in advance for your opinion. Rodd Version C  Version G  |
3.21
#... |
|---|
| Go for C. Colors are more intense and contrast seems to be better. But this is only my novice opinion. |
#... |
|---|
Michael Timm:I keep coming to the same conclusion---there is less faint emissions in periphery, and sharpness is less in places.....but it seems to glow from within as super heated plasma does. This is why I keep crossing the over-processing line....trying to lift too much and trying to sharpen too fine. Thanks |
3.82
#... |
|---|
| both versions are very nice, the structure of the nebula is perfect. what I would suggest is to avoid the too dark background, so version G looks better and I would apply even less contrast and allow more visibility on the faint parts. |
#... |
|---|
both versions are very nice, the structure of the nebula is perfect. what I would suggest is to avoid the too dark background, so version G looks better and I would apply even less contrast and allow more visibility on the faint parts.The background is identical (I only changed the nebula portions). But--I do prefer G from moment to moment, so I hear ya. |
#... |
|---|
both versions are very nice, the structure of the nebula is perfect. what I would suggest is to avoid the too dark background, so version G looks better and I would apply even less contrast and allow more visibility on the faint parts.Here is a solution--I used the core of C and the rest of G--In PI that is easy to do. So this has Gs background  |
0.00
#... |
|---|
| Version G looks better to my eye as the fainter nebulosity is more visible. In general for either I would probably prefer a slightly less dark background. |
#... |
|---|
Jarrett Trezzo:According to PI, the background may be a tad dark--but not crazy. Anyway--I really have no choice--my sky is not good and there was a lot of noise. I really had to limit my stretch. No image is perfect, and you may be right about this one. But, on the other hand, this is one of my best backgrounds, so I suppose it all depends on your reference point. |
11.07
#... |
|---|
|
On my current monitor, the difference is very subtle. But noise looks great, stars look tight and white, lots of detail in both shadows and highlights, and the colors look very realistic. Great result! I've not seen creativity on the Veil complex be rewarding. About the only thing to bring something new to this object is maybe framing. I appreciate you didn't level nebula horizontally - but I'm also betting this is your full FOV? RGB stars might add something? |
#... |
|---|
Kevin Morefield:Yes--this is the whole FOV--I had to rotate my camera to fit it in the frame. I would settle for a "correct" image--no long discussion on what that means is necessary--but suffice to say my goal was to present a high quality image. Not really tryig to present something creative as in trying to do something different. Just trying to see if I can do what others have done before me at a certain level. Yes--I have been considering RGB stars. Its probably worth a try, no? |
|
11.07
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos:Kevin Morefield:Yes--this is the whole FOV--I had to rotate my camera to fit it in the frame. I would settle for a "correct" image--no long discussion on what that means is necessary--but suffice to say my goal was to present a high quality image. Not really tryig to present something creative as in trying to do something different. Just trying to see if I can do what others have done before me at a certain level. Really it's the only thing I think you could do to improve with the current FOV. |
#... |
|---|
Kevin Morefield:And I don't want to go the mosaic route--not when I have larger FOVs at my disposal. So I will give it a shot. I figure only about an hour per channel right? I usually get white coes in my stars becuase they are overexposed, but if I limit my exposures to 30 sec and collect 30-60min worth, it will keep teh stars small like their narrowband counterparts, and they will be colored. Rodd |
|
11.07
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos:Kevin Morefield:And I don't want to go the mosaic route--not when I have larger FOVs at my disposal. So I will give it a shot. I figure only about an hour per channel right? I usually get white coes in my stars becuase they are overexposed, but if I limit my exposures to 30 sec and collect 30-60min worth, it will keep teh stars small like their narrowband counterparts, and they will be colored.Rodd I haven't done much LRGB star addition, but that's exactly the route I'd try first. Then add them with as a lighten layer in Photoshop. |
