Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

M16 Pillars of Creation in mono

swag72

By swag72
in Imaging - Deep Sky

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Barry-Wilson

Barry-Wilson

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

There are some tremendous PI images. They don't look like PI images at all, they look like the object. I think our own Barry Wilson is a PI man and he does lovely stuff. And there's the rub: Only the best imagers get really natural looking results from 'all PI' processing. I'm not going to link to PI images I don't like because I'm not in the business of insulting the hard work and passion of my fellow imagers, but there are lots of PI images I don't like at all. They have a big following, have appeared as APODs and so on. But they look like graphic art and design to me and have an instantly familiar aspect. 

I remember finding an image I did with Yves to be just lacking in attitude compared with a well known PI rendition. I then thought, hang on, the hard blue edge to this bit of nebulosity does not exist. A pure log stretch of our bue data showed no edge at all, just a gradient. I decided - ahem - to remain true to our data...

Olly

Thank you Olly, the feedback is truly appreciated.

I have followed this thread with interest.  I'm not trying to derail (again), but as PI user I thought I'd confuse Rodd even more :happy7: (only kidding).

I agree with much of what everyone has posted: like Sara, for me the aim is to produce a pretty picture that I hope authenticallay represents an astronomic object when using LRGB and illustrates nebulous structure and detail when using NB.  Just look at the many and beautiful images displayed on the forum processed with a wide range of software packages, equipment and imagers.  Olly and Chris are correct I believe in that some PI processed images do leave a residual "PI-d" flavour that detracts from the subject, eg from excessive use of HDR wavlets or LHE.  These tools have the ability to change the image beyond reality into sci-fi and have to be used sensitively (I often blend the resultant image back with the original for a subtle enhancement).  I have stated before that I think it is a false dichotomy to present either PI or PS.  The two aren't mutually exclusive as many imagers demonstrate regularly . . .  . when the weather allows, LOL!

It must be a quirk of my character and mental state but I find PS confusing having persevered with PI for the last few years :help: (only kidding, once again).  Maybe I'm Sheldon Cooper in disguise, LOL!  As far as I can tell, either piece of software, and all of the other programmes, eg Startoold etc, all require dedication, patience, accumulated experience, research and a dollop of creative imagination to bring out the best in you own data.  And there certainly is a good deal of overlap between them all.

Whatever you choose to do Rodd, everyone on SGL will agree that we do this for the sheer joy of the universe and remember nothing of real worth comes without effort and frustration.  Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barry-Wilson

Barry-Wilson

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

There are some tremendous PI images. They don't look like PI images at all, they look like the object. I think our own Barry Wilson is a PI man and he does lovely stuff. And there's the rub: Only the best imagers get really natural looking results from 'all PI' processing. I'm not going to link to PI images I don't like because I'm not in the business of insulting the hard work and passion of my fellow imagers, but there are lots of PI images I don't like at all. They have a big following, have appeared as APODs and so on. But they look like graphic art and design to me and have an instantly familiar aspect. 

I remember finding an image I did with Yves to be just lacking in attitude compared with a well known PI rendition. I then thought, hang on, the hard blue edge to this bit of nebulosity does not exist. A pure log stretch of our bue data showed no edge at all, just a gradient. I decided - ahem - to remain true to our data...

Olly

Thank you Olly, the feedback is truly appreciated.

I have followed this thread with interest.  I'm not trying to derail (again), but as PI user I thought I'd confuse Rodd even more :happy7: (only kidding).

I agree with much of what everyone has posted: like Sara, for me the aim is to produce a pretty picture that I hope authenticallay represents an astronomic object when using LRGB and illustrates nebulous structure and detail when using NB.  Just look at the many and beautiful images displayed on the forum processed with a wide range of software packages, equipment and imagers.  Olly and Chris are correct I believe in that some PI processed images do leave a residual "PI-d" flavour that detracts from the subject, eg from excessive use of HDR wavlets or LHE.  These tools have the ability to change the image beyond reality into sci-fi and have to be used sensitively (I often blend the resultant image back with the original for a subtle enhancement).  I have stated before that I think it is a false dichotomy to present either PI or PS.  The two aren't mutually exclusive as many imagers demonstrate regularly . . .  . when the weather allows, LOL!

It must be a quirk of my character and mental state but I find PS confusing having persevered with PI for the last few years :help: (only kidding, once again).  Maybe I'm Sheldon Cooper in disguise, LOL!  As far as I can tell, either piece of software, and all of the other programmes, eg Startoold etc, all require dedication, patience, accumulated experience, research and a dollop of creative imagination to bring out the best in you own data.  And there certainly is a good deal of overlap between them all.

Whatever you choose to do Rodd, everyone on SGL will agree that we do this for the sheer joy of the universe and remember nothing of real worth comes without effort and frustration.  Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rodd

Rodd

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Barry-Wilson said:

Thank you Olly, the feedback is truly appreciated.

I have followed this thread with interest.  I'm not trying to derail (again), but as PI user I thought I'd confuse Rodd even more :happy7: (only kidding).

I agree with much of what everyone has posted: like Sara, for me the aim is to produce a pretty picture that I hope authenticallay represents an astronomic object when using LRGB and illustrates nebulous structure and detail when using NB.  Just look at the many and beautiful images displayed on the forum processed with a wide range of software packages, equipment and imagers.  Olly and Chris are correct I believe in that some PI processed images do leave a residual "PI-d" flavour that detracts from the subject, eg from excessive use of HDR wavlets or LHE.  These tools have the ability to change the image beyond reality into sci-fi and have to be used sensitively (I often blend the resultant image back with the original for a subtle enhancement).  I have stated before that I think it is a false dichotomy to present either PI or PS.  The two aren't mutually exclusive as many imagers demonstrate regularly . . .  . when the weather allows, LOL!

It must be a quirk of my character and mental state but I find PS confusing having persevered with PI for the last few years :help: (only kidding, once again).  Maybe I'm Sheldon Cooper in disguise, LOL!  As far as I can tell, either piece of software, and all of the other programmes, eg Startoold etc, all require dedication, patience, accumulated experience, research and a dollop of creative imagination to bring out the best in you own data.  And there certainly is a good deal of overlap between them all.

Whatever you choose to do Rodd, everyone on SGL will agree that we do this for the sheer joy of the universe and remember nothing of real worth comes without effort and frustration.  Enjoy!

On the contrary Barry--It clears it up a bit, at least as to my decision to preserver a bit longer.  Thank you.

back to Sara's amazing image :icon_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.