Bicolor Cresecnt Modifications

[Rodd]

I added about 12 hours of data to the Ha OIII image.  I looked at it every way I could think and did not see too much of a difference with 12 additional hours.  I reprocessed the image concentrating on not over saturating, noise reduction, and sharpening the crescent but not the background.  Attached are 2 images:

1) My Final Ha-OIII-OIII attempt.

2) The Ha-OIII-OIII image prior to any processing beyond background gradient removal and neutralization, and color calibration.  There is a bit of morphological transformation just to keep the stars at bay. 

I like the background of image 2 and the Crescent of image 1.  Keep in mind that this is a bicolor image--the OIII was assigned to both the blue and green channel.  I tried adding 10 hours of SII to the green channel, but the image was turned purple and the blue envelope disappeared.

The data looks pretty good to me--focus and guiding were strong.  Image 2 seems like a great starting point.  My efforts went from imager 2 to image 1--An image that I feel is being held back by something I can't identify.  Suggestions are welcome. 

[laudropb]

Both are nice images.

[swag72]

I like the crescent in the first and the background of the 2nd image - That would be easy to combine and achieve in Photoshop. A duplicate layer, with a hidden mask and then just brush off the top layer until the crescent starts to show through. 

[johnrt]

I agree with Sara, the background in #1 is too forced, but a good crescent. Nicer background in #2.

Perhaps if you wish to process in Pixinsight  only, this little tutorial I wrote might be of help

http://cloudedout.squarespace.com/blog/2014/3/7/aht1rx0bqcy82goitww2otq5g6x7t2

 

[Rodd]

6 hours ago, johnrt said:

I agree with Sara, the background in #1 is too forced, but a good crescent. Nicer background in #2.

Perhaps if you wish to process in Pixinsight  only, this little tutorial I wrote might be of help

http://cloudedout.squarespace.com/blog/2014/3/7/aht1rx0bqcy82goitww2otq5g6x7t2

 

Johnrt,

 Thank you for the tutorial.  Yes, at present anyway, I am committed to PI.  I have to learn how to use it before I abandon it--or add another learning curve into the mix (I have only been imaging since November and have been dealing with several learning curves at once).  Now, a sole mountain looms before me...Pixinsight (actually I am trapped about 1/2 up its sheer face).   I have the Warren Keller videos, and have found a bunch of tutorials on-line--but they are all fairly broad brush/general.  I even went to a week long training seminal for PI given by the PI folks.  It was introductory though--which has provided me the ability to easily create images like Image 2 above--essentially a non processed image (only linear processing steps DC, ABE/DBE, BN, and CC).  Then I proceed to ruin images by processing in the non linear state (like Image 1 above).  Masks are key, and they never seem to fully protect the areas covered.  So I appreciate the tutorial.  I just looked at it quickly-just skimmed it, and saw the bit about creating a blank image with 40% brightness.  Don't know what it does yet--but that's something I would never have thought of in my trial and error sessions.  I feel that in PI there is a hidden reality that is very difficult to reach on your own.  Even the drop down documentation of the various tools that you can read are of little help--they are so technical, I don't really understand them in the respect of which settings to use.  Each variable in PI is really a multi-variable matrix.

So thanks!

[Rodd]

9 hours ago, swag72 said:

I like the crescent in the first and the background of the 2nd image - That would be easy to combine and achieve in Photoshop. A duplicate layer, with a hidden mask and then just brush off the top layer until the crescent starts to show through. 

Sara--I just opened both images to full size and used the + to zoom, and I think the second image is better in EVERY way.  The crescent in the 1st image looks better when the image is small--because it is brighter.  But when you zoom in a bit--it is surprisingly bad.  You asked me once what it is I don't like about my images.  To me, the second image looks like I am viewing it through fog, or a steamed up lens.  It seems dim, dull, not sharp and clear.  However, all the details are there with a proper ballance--they are just a bit washed out.  But the first image looks like a cartoon after all.  

[ultranova]

Hi, Rod hope you don't mind me having a play

I mixed both your images and split them 50/50

so you get the best of both worlds, in PS and

reduced the star size a little in PI  as not to distract from

the lovely wispy detail you have captured,

they are both a great pair of images in the own right

and beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Paul

[Rodd]

19 hours ago, ultranova said:

Hi, Rod hope you don't mind me having a play

I mixed both your images and split them 50/50

so you get the best of both worlds, in PS and

reduced the star size a little in PI  as not to distract from

the lovely wispy detail you have captured,

they are both a great pair of images in the own right

and beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Paul

Paul--nice.  That looks allot like another version I made using PI (Attached).  I think its the best version, but couldn't help tweeking it to get the first one above).  I am still after a cleaner, more transparent, sharper, deeper image.  Its hard to explain what it is I am after.  Take a look at Sara's or Olly's work and however they differ--that's what I am after.  

[ultranova]

Hi Rod, yes I am a great fan of Olly's and Sara's work and several others on SGL, and I do no what your saying

There pictures have a clean, clear look to them that is hard to match,

but then I look at how many hours they will spend on one target,

In fact they spend more time on one target than I do for 6 months worth, and

the Normally excellent sky they take them in and I think wow, 

My pictures are not as good as there's but I have achieved a picture

that only 30 years ago professional astronomers would struggle to achieve

I use Sara and Olly's and others  as a sort of bench mark that I Try and reach

I know that I will never reach it, not with my badly polluted sky but there's

nothing wrong with setting your goals high,

Most of all don't beat yourself up over it, I'm sure that it will all fall into place

You have captured some great data in your shots, your stars are nice and tight

your framing is good, you have the Good data which is the hard bit, the second

bit the processing is just as hard but the beauty of it is you can practice getting

the best you can get it as many times as you like.

Paul

 

 

 

[Tyson M]

I think these are amazing shots to be proud of. I like the tweaks at the end in the comments, but I am just a newb. 

 

Cheers from Canada.

[Rodd]

7 hours ago, ultranova said:

Hi Rod, yes I am a great fan of Olly's and Sara's work and several others on SGL, and I do no what your saying

There pictures have a clean, clear look to them that is hard to match,

but then I look at how many hours they will spend on one target,

In fact they spend more time on one target than I do for 6 months worth, and

the Normally excellent sky they take them in and I think wow, 

My pictures are not as good as there's but I have achieved a picture

that only 30 years ago professional astronomers would struggle to achieve

I use Sara and Olly's and others  as a sort of bench mark that I Try and reach

I know that I will never reach it, not with my badly polluted sky but there's

nothing wrong with setting your goals high,

Most of all don't beat yourself up over it, I'm sure that it will all fall into place

You have captured some great data in your shots, your stars are nice and tight

your framing is good, you have the Good data which is the hard bit, the second

bit the processing is just as hard but the beauty of it is you can practice getting

the best you can get it as many times as you like.

Paul

 

 

 

Paul--I agree...we are able to capture images that rival the Mount Palomar of my youth.  It is amazing.  Perhaps I do not give as much attention to sky conditions as I should.  The skies are not very dark and seeing usually poor--though transparency can be above average.  The only way to really know is to set up at a truly dark sky site under good seeing conditions, which I have not had a chance to do yet.  I need to drive several hours to get to a good site.  I couldn't do this until recently, as hordes of gremlins accosted me nightly for a time.  I have since beaten the little buggers back (for the most part), and would now feel comfortable taking it on the road.  I plan to do it soon.  I appreciate the words of encouragement. 

Rodd