Sh2-132 Data for Processing--Please show me what teh data has to offer

[gnomus]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

I believe you--I started processing without the STF--so far--I am amazed.  Hopefully I don't ruin it and will post an improved image.  You weren't kidding when you said there is a bunch of fine detail in  there-tiny details I never saw before.  I won't rush.  Thanks for all you input.  

Of course, now you will have to go back and reprocess all your other images without STF! 

[graemlourens]

@Rodd I didn't get around to processing your data, but many others have and i guess its just a matter of you finding your style & way that feels comfortable.

What i did a few weeks ago, was to screen record a full processing session from masters to final image. I called it 'quick narrowband tonemapping processing' as it 'only' took 1 hour (mostly i spend approx 3-4 hours per image just processing)

I'll PM you the link to the video in a few minutes. As soon as i have cleaned it up, i'll then be making a new topic, as i'd like to have feedback from everybody, what they do different, and if maybe somebody can spot something i'm doing wrong. The more feedback the better!

The video just shows one way of many how one can do it, and its not said at all that thats the correct way.

Kind regards, Graem

[Rodd]

Thanks Guys--Here is my first attempt using all that was discussed.  Keep in mind it is only the first attempt and I decided to stop and save it instead of going back to the beginning (whjich I think is necessary to REALLY get it right), but I wanted to let you know that you efforts were not in vain.  Thanks again.

[Rodd]

15 minutes ago, graemlourens said:

@Rodd I didn't get around to processing your data, but many others have and i guess its just a matter of you finding your style & way that feels comfortable.

What i did a few weeks ago, was to screen record a full processing session from masters to final image. I called it 'quick narrowband tonemapping processing' as it 'only' took 1 hour (mostly i spend approx 3-4 hours per image just processing)

I'll PM you the link to the video in a few minutes. As soon as i have cleaned it up, i'll then be making a new topic, as i'd like to have feedback from everybody, what they do different, and if maybe somebody can spot something i'm doing wrong. The more feedback the better!

The video just shows one way of many how one can do it, and its not said at all that thats the correct way.

Kind regards, Graem

 

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, gnomus said:

Of course, now you will have to go back and reprocess all your other images without STF! 

 

22 minutes ago, graemlourens said:

@Rodd I didn't get around to processing your data, but many others have and i guess its just a matter of you finding your style & way that feels comfortable.

What i did a few weeks ago, was to screen record a full processing session from masters to final image. I called it 'quick narrowband tonemapping processing' as it 'only' took 1 hour (mostly i spend approx 3-4 hours per image just processing)

I'll PM you the link to the video in a few minutes. As soon as i have cleaned it up, i'll then be making a new topic, as i'd like to have feedback from everybody, what they do different, and if maybe somebody can spot something i'm doing wrong. The more feedback the better!

The video just shows one way of many how one can do it, and its not said at all that thats the correct way.

Kind regards, Graem

Thanks guys for everything--here is the result of your efforts.  Please understand this is only the first effort, and to be truthful, I really need to start from scratch again to get everything just right--but I wanted to show you that you efforts were not in vain.  So I saved my first attempt for posterity.  Thank you!!!  Let me know what you think.

[graemlourens]

Hi Rodd.

I think you're doing great progress. Just keep at it, and don't forget to also take breaks  I admire your dedication for improvement, a quality that comes in very handy in this hobby....!

Kind regards, Graem

[Uranium235]

Ive gone for the Bob Franke method (classic gold & blue), but I quite like Johns rendition:

 

 

[gnomus]

2 hours ago, Rodd said:

 

Thanks guys for everything--here is the result of your efforts.  Please understand this is only the first effort, and to be truthful, I really need to start from scratch again to get everything just right--but I wanted to show you that you efforts were not in vain.  So I saved my first attempt for posterity.  Thank you!!!  Let me know what you think.

 

This is miles better than the image that began this thread.  You must be very pleased.  

Now if I am being hypercritical, I would say that, for me, you are still trying to pull just a little too much out of your data - but only just.  Notice that top right star again - and compare it with the one in Uranium's image just below yours.  If you stretched your data just a little less, I also think that you would lose that slight graininess around the edges of the nebula.  Finally, your background looks a little red - or maybe purple.  Can that be fixed I wonder.  But I am being picky - you are well  on your way now.  Congratulations.    

[Uranium235]

Spot-on there, sometimes less is more. It helps to zoom in to 100% every now and then just to make sure any noise isnt creeping in (either by over-stretching or over-sharpening). Its all to easy to miss it if you work on the image at a 30% size view (for example).

As for star sizes, I didnt run any star reduction - but I did run the mandatory "minus magenta" a couple of times in Ps by simply reducing the magenta saturation by 100%. And John was right, the data really does stand up to sharpening quite well.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, gnomus said:

This is miles better than the image that began this thread.  You must be very pleased.  

Now if I am being hypercritical, I would say that, for me, you are still trying to pull just a little too much out of your data - but only just.  Notice that top right star again - and compare it with the one in Uranium's image just below yours.  If you stretched your data just a little less, I also think that you would lose that slight graininess around the edges of the nebula.  Finally, your background looks a little red - or maybe purple.  Can that be fixed I wonder.  But I am being picky - you are well  on your way now.  Congratulations.    

On my desk top monitor there is some red--but on my 4K processing screen there is no red at all--makes it difficult to know--I guess I need to look at the numbers and not go on visual.  I guess if I had to choose a style (still struggling with the concept of style in a process I am hoping to make documentary instead of "rendering"), I would say I like details--I guess that is why I tend to push the data pretty hard.   I think that I probably screwed up somewhere along the line--I tried masked stretch for the first time (got strange warnings that the image was too dark to stretch)--anyway--as I said--I need to start again from the beginning (probably several times).  I'll get there.

Thanks--Rodd

[gnomus]

You'll get there that is for sure.  When I put the eyedropper tool in Photoshop over an area of sky in your image I got R:23 - G:9 - B: 35.  The background should be even, of course.  I think background sky is one area where measurement may trump what the eye tells you.  You do need to develop your own style, of course.  There would be little or no point if everyone's image looked identical.  I can only speak from my own experience (which is limited).  When I started, I was amazed at how much information the camera was picking up and I thought that it was my job to make every last bit of that image visible to the viewer.  As a result, almost every one of my images was overstretched and, frankly, a bit of a mess.  I still have this tendency.    However, the images I admired looked very different from my images.  

The versions of your image posted by Uranium and JohnRT look really nice. My own favourite is the one by JohnRT.  It is absolute class.  The nebula looks like a gas cloud - it has transparency and it fades off very gradually into the background.  This is your data - you could achieve this result.  The faint stuff is more obvious in your image - but it looks more 'realistic' or 'natural' in John's.  In a recent thread (I can't remember where), Olly Penrice said something about preferring images to have a slightly 'under-processed' look.  As I said earlier, maybe it is best to leave a little still in there and not try to display everything.

Sorry to go on about this - I wrote the above mostly as a reminder to myself! 

You have made a great leap forward, I think.       

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, gnomus said:

You'll get there that is for sure.  When I put the eyedropper tool in Photoshop over an area of sky in your image I got R:23 - G:9 - B: 35.  The background should be even, of course.  I think background sky is one area where measurement may trump what the eye tells you.  You do need to develop your own style, of course.  There would be little or no point if everyone's image looked identical.  I can only speak from my own experience (which is limited).  When I started, I was amazed at how much information the camera was picking up and I thought that it was my job to make every last bit of that image visible to the viewer.  As a result, almost every one of my images was overstretched and, frankly, a bit of a mess.  I still have this tendency.    However, the images I admired looked very different from my images.  

The versions of your image posted by Uranium and JohnRT look really nice. My own favourite is the one by JohnRT.  It is absolute class.  The nebula looks like a gas cloud - it has transparency and it fades off very gradually into the background.  This is your data - you could achieve this result.  The faint stuff is more obvious in your image - but it looks more 'realistic' or 'natural' in John's.  In a recent thread (I can't remember where), Olly Penrice said something about preferring images to have a slightly 'under-processed' look.  As I said earlier, maybe it is best to leave a little still in there and not try to display everything.

Sorry to go on about this - I wrote the above mostly as a reminder to myself! 

You have made a great leap forward, I think.       

Thanks--I need to calm myself and step away for a bit and come back for another look before I post.  I am always amazed at how much worse my images look the next morning.   Soon, this "Christmas morning" feeling will pass, and I will "mature" I am sure.  Right now, I am giddy just by the prospect of actually seeing an image I make that has potential; (beyond the data quality).   Its very much like a little kid who runs up to his parents with a freshly drawn picture and says proudly "look mom--I did this!"

Thanks for your help.  Long way to go--but now I can glimpse some light at the end of the tunnel  

[gnomus]

I am sure that I have seen Sara Wager saying - in more than one thread - that she does not post until a day or so after she thinks she has finished.  This is probably good advice.  Like you, however, I cannot help myself!  And I cannot keep away from your data, either!  I had another go.  Not sure how successful this one is:

[Rodd]

18 minutes ago, gnomus said:

I am sure that I have seen Sara Wager saying - in more than one thread - that she does not post until a day or so after she thinks she has finished.  This is probably good advice.  Like you, however, I cannot help myself!  And I cannot keep away from your data, either!  I had another go.  Not sure how successful this one is:

I like yours the best--I think your first one!   I see what you mean about leaving a little in there.  On second thought (I just looked at the full image zoomed)  I like your first one widefield and this one full and zoomed in, if that makes sense.  They are both good. I have modified mine somewhat--reduced chroma saturation in background (range masked the nebula and dropped the saturation on the background with curves).  And I added a tiny, tiny (very small) amount of TGVdenoise to get rid of the slight speckling in the nebula you mentioned.  Not going to post though--have to stand strong!  It is easy to get carried away and post after every improvement thinking its the final image--2 hours later you have 10 final images!.  But I see the path...for the first time I see the way and that is comforting.

[gnomus]

It's funny.  After posting this I went back to my earlier efforts.  I liked my first effort a little more too!  And it took a lot less work!  It really is all in the quality of that first stretch - when will I ever learn.  

I'm glad that you can see a way forward.  I look forward to seeing your next meisterwerk.

[Tom OD]

Really good input from the group here. This is a great read.

Tom.

[Rodd]

.

10 hours ago, gnomus said:

It's funny.  After posting this I went back to my earlier efforts.  I liked my first effort a little more too!  And it took a lot less work!  It really is all in the quality of that first stretch - when will I ever learn.  

I'm glad that you can see a way forward.  I look forward to seeing your next meisterwerk.

Well-I broke down--here is the chroma reduced background and a little TGV denoise to smooth out the fringes of the nebula.  On my 4K screen it looks good.  Background is darker and more balanced--numbers are like .07, .08, .065  or similar (except where there is a bit of nebolusity).  I know it could be better--but this is as far as I can go without starting over.

[gnomus]

Very nice Rodd.  Congrats.

[wimvb]

Not trying to revive this thread, but I found the original data, and just had to throw my limited NB skills at it. Also cropped to get closer to the nebula.

[gorann]

6 hours ago, wimvb said:

Not trying to revive this thread, but I found the original data, and just had to throw my limited NB skills at it. Also cropped to get closer to the nebula.

Nice one Wim! I probably have a go at this one tomorow, by trying the RGB-like palette so I would not directly compete (in vain) with the excellent images posted here.

[wimvb]

10 minutes ago, gorann said:

by trying the RGB-like palette

I'm also trying with the same palette I used for M17 (SHOOH).

[Mick J]

Thanks for bringing this thread back to life (enjoying the LRGB thread as well).  Nice to follow you guys playing together  ?

[gorann]

50 minutes ago, wimvb said:

I'm also trying with the same palette I used for M17 (SHOOH).

Your first version looks very promising indeed! I assume you read the thread and saw that Rodd posted better data a bit down (not that it looks like bad data in your image - just want to make sure)

[wimvb]

Yes Göran, I took the raw data that didn't have noise reduction applied.

20 minutes ago, Mick J said:

Thanks for bringing this thread back to life (enjoying the LRGB thread as well).  Nice to follow you guys playing together  ?

Yep, just some guys having a bit of fun in the (virtual) sandbox.

[wimvb]

@Rodd, do you mind if I put my version of your image on astrobin? With credit of course.