Sh2-155 Modifications

[Rodd]

Just looking for some opinions here.  I modified the histogram based upon advice and I am trying to decide if it is an improvement.  Certainly seems to pop more.  Tvnp101is, STT-8300 Astrodon 3nm filters.  About 22 hours total

Image 1 is new version

Image 2 is original version

Thanks

Rodd

 

[PatrickGilliland]

I actually prefer the original myself.

You could try this though. Should hill the purple around the stars.

 

Paddy

 

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

I actually prefer the original myself.

You could try this though. Should hill the purple around the stars.

 

Paddy

 

Thanks Paddy--Is that the same as the magenta halo remover formula in Pixel Math--same symbols but different arrangement.  Seems to do the same thing, but yours protects the image a bit better I think.  Anyway, I had used the Magenta removing script, but I am not sure I like the way it makes the stars bigger.  The only stars that seem to have the magenta halos are the biggest ones. 

Thanks Paddy--Rodd

[Rodd]

29 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

I actually prefer the original myself.

You could try this though. Should hill the purple around the stars.

 

Paddy

 

Paddy--here is a version using your Pixel Math formula and a histogram modification that is better than the previous one--I think.  Black point not so low, and the brights just a tad brighter.  Your Magenta removal seemed to improve clarity throughout--thanks! I guess the little stars had it too. What do you think?

[PatrickGilliland]

Yes better - careful not too loose all colour though.  I would try blending orig 20% with new 80% just to avoid stars being pure white.  Histogram looks better now.  It's an unusual palette but i like it and nice to see original one that works.

Paddy

[Rodd]

5 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Yes better - careful not too loose all colour though.  I would try blending orig 20% with new 80% just to avoid stars being pure white.  Histogram looks better now.  It's an unusual palette but i like it and nice to see original one that works.

Paddy

See-that has me worried, the fact that you (and others) have indicated that it is an unusual pallet.  That by itself is not the problem.  What is is that I used a straight SHO pallet with modifying the colors at all (I don't recall exactly, but I do not think I even changed saturation much--maybe a tad).  So, how come it came out "unusual?"   

 

[Rodd]

22 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Yes better - careful not too loose all colour though.  I would try blending orig 20% with new 80% just to avoid stars being pure white.  Histogram looks better now.  It's an unusual palette but i like it and nice to see original one that works.

Paddy

Here's the final-a 30% 70% blend actually.  I think it is the best so far.  Thanks Paddy.

[PatrickGilliland]

15 minutes ago, Rodd said:

See-that has me worried, the fact that you (and others) have indicated that it is an unusual pallet.  That by itself is not the problem.  What is is that I used a straight SHO pallet with modifying the colors at all (I don't recall exactly, but I do not think I even changed saturation much--maybe a tad).  So, how come it came out "unusual?"   

 

Not sure - maybe it is the luminosity element that has impacted the colour?

This image is what i would go for in SHO http://www.astrobin.com/264706/E/?nc=user but i have never processed the cave so may be a characteristic of the area?  Possibly if less lightness it would tally up.

Paddy 

[PatrickGilliland]

Just now, PatrickGilliland said:

Not sure - maybe it is the luminosity element that has impacted the colour?

This image is what i would go for in SHO http://www.astrobin.com/264706/E/?nc=user but i have never processed the cave so may be a characteristic of the area?  Possibly if less lightness it would tally up.

Paddy 

That said if you have something new roll with it when it works, being original is a good thing!

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

That said if you have something new roll with it when it works, being original is a good thing!

here is a bit of a saturation boost.  The core has that yellow/gold hue--the outer areas are not as colorful but now have a bit more.  I don't want to push it too much further.  This might be too far as it is.  I tried a 50% 50% blend of the original and this one--but its just a bit less saturated.  This one is the most colorful.  Closer to traditional...no?  I don't think the image can take it though--too noisy for this much chroma.  What do you think?

[Rodd]

And here is the same image with a little less brightness to calm the noise.  Maybe this is better.

[PatrickGilliland]

7 minutes ago, Rodd said:

here is a bit of a saturation boost.  The core has that yellow/gold hue--the outer areas are not as colorful but now have a bit more.  I don't want to push it too much further.  This might be too far as it is.  I tried a 50% 50% blend of the original and this one--but its just a bit less saturated.  This one is the most colorful.  Closer to traditional...no?  I don't think the image can take it though--too noisy for this much chroma.  What do you think?

I would go with this one if any but think it most likely needs mid process change rather than just a sat boost.  Just whacking up the colour at the end is not always.  I think i still prefer the less sat Version as it feels original. 2 for 1 here  

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

I would go with this one if any but think it most likely needs mid process change rather than just a sat boost.  Just whacking up the colour at the end is not always.  I think i still prefer the less sat Version as it feels original. 2 for 1 here  

You are probably right--but I am not ready to dive into this image again.  Too much of my life is in the versions I have (way too much).  I will revisit when I have improved some more perhaps.  If I tried now, I would end up with 10 messes and maybe 1 version that might be a tad better (emphasis in the might).   

 

Thanks Paddy--as usual you have been a big help.

[PatrickGilliland]

Just now, Rodd said:

You are probably right--but I am not ready to dive into this image again.  Too much of my life is in the versions I have (way too much).  I will revisit when I have improved some more perhaps.  If I tried now, I would end up with 10 messes and maybe 1 version that might be a tad better (emphasis in the might).   

 

Thanks Paddy--as usual you have been a big help.

No problem - as i said I suspect it's just brightness and needs to be addressed earlier in the process if you want to change.  But if you can knock out images at that brightness, have a unique (by that i mean it is close to the original but with a twist not something radically different) pallette and maintain quality then you have something 'Rodd' added.  Being original is not a bad thing..... 

[Rodd]

10 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

No problem - as i said I suspect it's just brightness and needs to be addressed earlier in the process if you want to change.  But if you can knock out images at that brightness, have a unique (by that i mean it is close to the original but with a twist not something radically different) pallette and maintain quality then you have something 'Rodd' added.  Being original is not a bad thing..... 

Well--here is the 50-50 blend I mentioned.  I think this is the best.  For now!

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Yes better - careful not too loose all colour though.  I would try blending orig 20% with new 80% just to avoid stars being pure white.  Histogram looks better now.  It's an unusual palette but i like it and nice to see original one that works.

Paddy

Hate to do this to ya--but I just had to tweak the histogram.  Here is the Final Final (for now!!)