While the Bean nebula doesn't have a very appealing name, it is another of the spectacularly messy/complex LMC star fomations regions.  The Bean doesn't really do the nebula justice, the eponymous Bean looks more like an embryo floating in a starry firnament.  The Star Child nebula anyone?  [Showing my age here, I guess] 

I had found some old Ha and [SII] data I had taken of this nebula last year - I never managed to get the [OIIi] -  to which I added some one-click observations from Telescopes live.  The Telescope Live data was significant deeper than my data, hence they get the credit in the acquisition session.    Using this data, I was interested to test my growing impression that the inclusion of  [SII] data - even for an nebula with detectable [SII] - doesn't actually help the overall visual appearence.

In this case, I present the nebula in four different pallettes

Original:  Foraxx SHO [what I have been mostly using up to recently] 
Version C: Traditional SHO [which I rarely use now] 
Version D: : Modifield Foraxx SHO [swap factors for Ha and SII in the R channel]
Version E::  Foraxx HOO 

In each case, I post-processed as similarily as possible [e.g. used Ha as a luminance layer, GHS stretching, gave each tiny amount of MLT sharpening] but allowed myself a bit of artistic licence in each case [e.g. with  hue incurves transformation, and SCNR application] to get the "best looking" - at least to my eye - image in each case.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts - and again it may be simply a matter of personal taste - but I think that the Foraxx HOO image is the most aesthetically pleasing,.  It is followed closed by the modified Foraxx SHO, but it uses less than two/thirds of the data.   For me, it is the overwhelming "blue"ness of the nebular regions caused by the lack of signal in the red channel when [SII] is a main contributor here, that causes much of the problem.  And I don't see [SII] giving anything back.