Bicolor Crescent (NGC 6888)

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, swag72 said:

Processing is the hardest part in my opinion - You have said earlier that you can't seem to be able to replicate other peoples images that you see.... here's the thing...... How about you don't try to replicate them? You can do your own thing, you can develop your own style.

I can't help with anything that you said in the post above.... I'm afraid it's all PI talk and I understand zero of it. What I will say is that processing is a very touchy feely process. I don't think that trying to emulate someone else's picture is the way to learn how to process. You need to look at the data and decide what it actually needs.... sometimes it doesn't need what you may have in your standard tool box and so you need to look again and really decide how you are going to get to an end point.

I guess what I'm saying is that blindly bludgeoning stuff because someone uses this workflow or because their image looks a certain way is not the way to get there in my experience. 

Regarding data, I definitely find processing is easier when there's more of it. There's more room for manoeuvre for sure. I look at peoples images and am often amazed at what they achieve with so little data in my opinion. The project I am currently on will get in excess of 40 hours... Will that make my picture better? It probably won't, but .......... it will make the processing easier for me and the way that I process, and for me that is worth every extra hour that I do.

Being self critical is good and I think that there's too little of that about, but in being self critical one also needs to develop ways in which to get to the final goal.

Sara--You are probably right about not emulating a pic--but its hard because in the beginning one says--" I want to take a picture of X".  Then one says--"is it possible to take a pic of X with my equipment?  Rather than looking in an encyclopedia of images captured with Hubble or Chandra or Palomar, its more realistic to look online and see an actual picture taken with the scope and camera one uses.  Once that image is in your mind, it is a difficult thing not to compare your image with that one.   I will work on not doing this anymore.

As far as style goes--I did not realize that rendering a photographic image of DSOs was so subjective.  My goal has always been to portray the universe "as is", with very little "me".  The Moon is like this--I love the Moon and am better at imaging it than DSOs (it is easier!).  But my point is, there is less "artistic" elements to that.  One is concerned with light levels and focus.  The goal is clarity.  Even processing tools mostly work to improve resolution (I know resolution can't be improved--it is what it is for a given system--I refer to the "other" resolution).  With the moon, 10 different (competent) people will give 10 similar views of Copernicus Crater (differences mostly attributed to equipment and seeing unless they are pursuing avant-garde techniques, such as showing mineral content using albedo and color).  The planets are similar--but they are more difficult, so images will vary more--still mostly scale and clarity, with color as well.  But for DSOs, it seems the opposite is true.  Style is big.  I have to come to terms with how I will handle this.  I want to produce a coffee table book of images, not of my processing techniques (maybe that goal will change when I learn how to process!).  When one watches a video made from a camera hidden in a badger den, the focus is what is there and what is transpiring--sort of like watching a family video or looking through an photo album--one is concerned with what they see--("Yes... badgers compartmentalize their dens", or "badgers dream!"  Or, Uncle Tom did wear a wig! etc.).  

Maybe it is not possible to separate the processor from the Nebula.  I am still baby at this--can't even stand up yet.  But I am still of the persuasion that there is a "real" version of what is out there (ironic as my over processed images are as unreal as cartoons!).  But I hate them, so that counts for something.  Yes, and its ironic that I like NB, for the color is anything you want.  But, in this respect, I like my mono (single channel) NB images (Ha mostly or OIII for somethings like Thor's Helmet) better than color versions.  This is understandable--for one can't argue with a mono Ha image--"there is the nebula"  No argument--no room for debate, for the camera only captures emissions of Ha.  Like a drawing in charcoal--removed are all elements of color saturation and blending of tone.  Gone is the "Art".

I ramble.....I really appreciate your input.  The more I do this the harder it gets and the more I respect those of you who have achieved great success.  Thanks

[johnrt]

You have had some great advice in this thread Rodd!

You can and should develop a style, I can spot a Sara or Olly image a mile off (and many others on this forum too), each has their own distinct style that sets them apart from the rest.

The biggest leap forward I made in processing my images was to actually start looking at the data and asking myself "what does it NEED" not just following a predetermined set of processing steps because that's what you're meant to do. Think of your images in zones of signal when your process, low / medium & high. Each needs it's own processing in a different way to the others.

Less is most certainly more, I often finish an image, leave it for a couple of hours, come back and go NO! That's too much, and roll back a couple of steps for a better image.

Pixinsight is a great tool, but it is like trying to crack an egg with a sledge hammer at times, if you can start to pick up some PS skills you will quickly develop more control and precision in your processing.