Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

M42 which version is best?


Recommended Posts

The other night I took 100 20 sec subs of m42 with my 1000d and 10" auto tracking Dobsonian (alt/az).  I'm struggling to get the processing right, trying not to blow out the core but wanting to bring out as much detail as possible. I've done 2 versions but am not sure which is best.

Please tell me A or B?

A

post-4016-0-88480200-1420057414_thumb.pn

B

post-4016-0-24290700-1420057498_thumb.pn

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both versions are best - and you can have the best of both using Layers in Photoshop. While this tutorial uses subs of different length it will work perfectly well for two different stretches of the same data, one a gentle stretch and one a hard one. In your case I'd suggest an even softer one than the first image blended with a harder stretch than the second.

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/LAYMASK.HTM

M42 is a special case in which this technique is vital. While it is often suggested that all sorts of targets need it, this is simply wrong. The technique is rarely needed. But, yes, M42 needs it big time!

Olly

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice images. I have been experimenting with layering 3 different exposure times with good success. I have not experimented with more than 3 though. Maybe someone with more experience can recommend just how many different exposure times are worth layering before the point of diminishing returns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use layers all of the time in PS to ensure that brighter parts of a nebula don't get out of hand. 

I stretch the complete image, duplicate the layer and create a layer mask on the top duplicate layer. I 'reveal' the layer mask and then using the brush tool I use varying opacities to bring the darker area in from the layer below to the brighter area in the upper duplicate layer. This ensures that nothing gets out of hand.

So while there are no different exposure lengths, the principle is very similar.

Hope that makes sense!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

It is a very nice image and your large number of subs has resulted in a very clean data set. It is short but clean so it can stand a bit of heavy stretching. I made this from the 2nd version just to show what there is. Hope that you approve.

Regards,

A.G

post-28808-0-41600200-1420674000.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brighter your colour data is the more easily it can burn out the colour. To some extent we can see this in your blending which, from a brightness rather than colour point of view, is spot on. What I think would make it even better would be a boost to the colour saturation in the bright Trapezium layer. Once AG gave it some welly on the stretch we saw the shortage of colour in that region.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what does your histogram look like with this image? I think it needs a balance as it looks like it will have a quite heavy skew in either blue or green. Balance that up and that will look better I would think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.