1.51
#... |
|---|
|
Hey fellow nerds; looking for some constructive criticism for my M42 image (I know its a common target but I think it’s one of the hardest). Would greatly appreciate your input, thanks in advance! https://www.astrobin.com/0tzdl9/D/ |
1.81
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hey Tim. I like your coloring and the HDR details. If you do a bit of pixel peeping, I think you went too hard on the deconvolution (there’s a slight black halo around most stars, best seen in the nebula). Cheers, Jesco |
6.02
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
| It seems that you have rich enough data but in my opinion the sharpening and the noise reduction are too much. I prefer a more subtle an natural processing. I also think that the colour balance is very good :-) |
1.43
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hello! i like the image, but i agree that maybe you sharpened it a little bit too much. Also, to my eyes, the colors in the final image tend to be a little purple-bluish (i prefer the second version). My suggestion is to reprocess keeping an eye to this details. Regards, Diego. |
|
1.51
#... |
|---|
|
Thanks guys, that’s interesting input. I didn’t use and deconvolution and only a touch of MMT sharpening. Regarding the colors of the last revision I was trying to neutralize the very blue stars in the image. thank you all for your valuable input! |
11.24
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi TT. I think in AP there are probably 3 separate attitudes or goals that the photographer has for the final image. Scientific- Image maintains mostly accurate, realistic colors, standard framing (not cropped), and minimal exaggeration of individual elements. Research- image emphasis might include things like spectroscopy, photometry, and star mapping. The third type of image is probably: Artistic- Final images become more about the photographers personal interpretation. Colors, crop, frame, saturation and POV become the individuals and, although still open to critique in quality of AP basics like roundness of stars and focus and basic processing, are they remain valid as one person's interpretation. What makes some images odd is the unintentional mixture of the 3 attitudes. I think your image is completely valid as your artistic interpretation, indeed, there is a good deal of evidence, here on Astrobin that art is alive and well. Scott |
|
1.51
#... |
|---|
Hi TT. I think in AP there are probably 3 separate attitudes or goals that the photographer has for the final image. Hey Scott, thank you so much for your input. I definitely do a combination of the three when it comes to details but I feel colors are a bit open to interpretation and that’s generally where I like to play the most (maybe after some HDR and LocalHisto adjustments). What I am very curious about is the logic behind “likes” of normal viewers i.e. on Facebook for example ZWO page. Now by all means I’m not really worried about it in a sense that I’ll lose sleep at night because of it, but I see how people “like” an image is an interpretation of the image public appeal in a way. I am comfortable with my level of knowledge of image processing, I’m just kinda fascinated in how what I see as very bland with no contrast images of the same object could receive hundreds of “likes” and I end up with few. I hope this isn’t taken out of context, I’m just genuinely curious what makes an image more appealing to public. I know M42 is a very common image and is not something to be impressed with that much I’m simply using it as an example. |
|
11.24
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
TT; I totally get where you coming from regarding "likes", and have a couple of theories about likes and TP's and IOTD'S ;). Maybe over a beer sometime, Lol. Have you checked out the Anything Goes section of the forum? I bet you will find a few of the threads interesting in more ways than one. M42 is one of my favorite images and I shoot it every season to document my personal progress so no worries about that, and I really liked your composition with Running Man. Scott |
|
1.51
#... |
|---|
| Scott, every good conversation starts with a beer! Yes I’ve read and I’ve seen many misconstrued as criticism of others while I’m solely looking for pointers on my own images to see how others are perceiving my images. Some generally like me could feel intimidated offering their criticism please don’t I’m very open! |
9.03
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
HI, I am by no means an expert, but it is raining tonight and have time for a few comments. You stars are very interesting but my workflow absolutely requires destarring and image prior to stretching the nebulosity for maximum clarity. I then put the stars back, but this is tricky, but doable. I use Starnet, in PixInsight. On the colors, I use the photometric calibration in PI... that is pretty easy and it does take the guess work out of color calibration. Now, I have two tools I use that are a bit more controversial. I use Topaz AI to denoise my starless NB images or for that matter an RGB image. I simply get away with fewer subs... I do mostly NB. Lastly, if you do not give a hoot for color accuracy and want to be artistic, take a look at 3D LUT... this is professional color manipulating software... 3-dimensional (color) look up tables to transform one color very precisely into another. Forget color masks. I think with what you have invested in this nice equipment, you may want to spend a touch on these last two software suggestions. Please take what I say with a grain of salt as the image is mighty fine.... JY |
|
1.51
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
HI, Thanks for the pointers, I do use Photometric Calibration in Pixinsight, but I alter that a bit after for effect and to bring out the faint nebulosity. Regarding Starnet for Narrowband imaging with stars in control FOR SURE I always use the method of removing the stars than adding them back, but for RGB data this has been problematic especially with so many very large stars that Starnet seem to have trouble with. I'll look at 3D LU, I've tried Topaz Denoise before without much success I'll also look into that. Thanks Tim |
1.43
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Rather than asking for likes, ask for dislikes...what I don't like about my own images (not being mean to myself, just what I see wrong with mine):
Color, contrast, diffraction spikes, etc. are all subjective. I've seen some images that have extreme pallette choices but due to the use of complimentary colors, great focus, good composition, etc. I thought they were beautiful images. few diffraction spikes are fine as long as they don't overwhelm the object of interest. Your final image looks better - looks like you softened up the sharpening, especially around M43. You are doing great - you have a very nice portfolio. Keep it up. CS & GB! |
9.48
#... |
|---|
|
It's a very nice M42 image overall. You are right that M42 is bright, but not easy to capture "well." If I had processed this image, the one thing I would have done differently would be to reduce the brightness of the midtones just a bit. Perhaps the colors and details would stand out more if you just pulled back the curves slightly. Of course, you have to realize that I might be viewing the image with a different brightness setting on my computer monitor, and with dimmer lighting in my house. For me, the most difficult aspect of processing is guessing what other people are going to see on their monitors. |
