M33 re-edit

[MartinB]

Posted this recently and was very happy with it. I was trying to keep the processing to a minimum and held back on doing much sharpening on the luminence other than some deconvolution. Have been having another play and think I prefer it with a bit more sharpening. Would be interested to know what you think.

These are the details - ED80 with AP 0.67 reducer. SXV H9. About 80 x 2min CLS luminence. 60 Red and green 40 secs blue 56 secs. Colour binned 2x2.

Re-edit

(click to enlarge)

Original

(click to enlarge)

Haven't a clue where the blue line down the L side has appeared from :?

[centroid]

Its certainly brought out some more of the fine detail Martin, and made the galaxy 'sparkle', but I'd say that its right on the limit of permissable sharpening.

I would say that something between the two images, would be perfection.

Dave

[barkis]

I can only offer a non technical answer Martin, and I don't think it will even amuse you, so forgive me. It seems as if you had taken a squeegee, and dragged it from right to left, taking some material away, and depositing it on the left side. It has left the image looking sharper, and a slight mist that covered the original, has diminished now. I now hope someone who knows what they are talking about,can give a more sensible diagnosis.

[robindurant]

Crikey! you really are good, no wonder I don't get respose to my rubbish. I really must try harder inspired by good yourself.

Robin

[MartinB]

no wonder I don't get respose to my rubbish.

Sorry to here that Robin. It used to be easy to comment on all the images posted here but now it is quite a challenge. I certainly wouldn't describe your images as rubbish and think you have made some great progress. I will try harder

Thanks Dave and Ron. I haven't applied a huge amount of sharpening and I have had a good close look and there are no sharpening artefacts that I can see. Think I have just taken out a bit of what the atmosphere has put in. It just goes to show that much of this processing lark is subjective, so many choices all down the line. Perhaps a half way house then

[centroid]

I didn't say that there were any sharpening artifacts in there Martin, but just felt that it was probably right on the limit, before they would become evident. What it does show, is the very good SNR the image had, to allow that degree of processing.

As you say, it is a very subjective affair, just like an earlier discussion about adding artificial diffaction spikes to an image. Some of us don't think they add anything of value to an image, while others do.

I guess if we are happy with our own results in the way we present them, that's the most important factor. Although, I do always welcome constructive criticism, as I now you do too. For many of us, its a valuable part of the 'learning curve'.

Both images are pretty damn good in 'my book', and would readily 'grace' the pages of an astro magazine.

Dave

[CELESCOPE]

Hmm well speaking of an ole time imager ehehheheh , i think i like the original one best Martin , on my screen i can just see little halo,s around the stars , your original is a nice soft image, this M33 is a funny devil to get right ,and i know what you mean , we can never be totally happy with this one , thats why i dont bother with it anymore lol.

But wee all have different views on the way we see them i guess.

Rog

[MartinB]

Thanks chaps. I just didn't know any more after spending so much time playing with it. Bit like soft versus hard focus with any photo. Well that's very useful. I'll go off and have a play some time and come up with something in between then might send it off.