Rosette Nebula in Ha

[Rodd]

14 30 min subs during a 90% Moon approximately 45 degrees from target.  Image seems to lack the depth I was expecting, though the details are decent.  Wondering if the Moon has flattened out the image, or am I expecting too much from an Ha stack?

Televue np101is with 0.8x reducer, SBIG STT-8300 with self guiding filter wheel and 3nm Astrodon filters.

[Adam J]

Excellent Image. 

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Excellent Image. 

Thanks Adam.  here is a bit more depth.  Not much I can do with it now without more data.  Still a bit flat

[Rodd]

here's a bit more depth.  Getting there.

 

[Rodd]

Final tweaks for now.  I assume from the lack of comments that then image is not up to the standards of the forum.  Your a tough crowd to please.

[Barry-Wilson]

Hi Rodd - either of your first two versions for me .  The hardest part of processing I find is learning when to STOP.

I don't think it is flat at all, it is a very good Ha mono.  Neither do I think you need more data, unless it is in a different channel.

CS!

[swag72]

55 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Final tweaks for now.  I assume from the lack of comments that then image is not up to the standards of the forum.  Your a tough crowd to please.

For me Rodd it's more the approach to postings that prevents me from commenting than anything else if I'm honest

[Rodd]

Just now, swag72 said:

For me Rodd it's more the approach to postings that prevents me from commenting than anything else if I'm honest

Not sure what you mean......But that's OK.  I'll take what I can get.

[M106]

Lovely shot, i see what you mean about flat, the shadows arent as dark as i'd expect, and the lighter parts are all at a similar level/brightness (if i was doing a quick edit (i was a graphic artist once, but not star shots) i'd use the Light and Shadow sliders in Gimp (or most editors) to get more depth and contrast; still a great image though

[gnomus]

Version 1 for me Rodd.  Version 2 is starting to look a little forced and versions 3 and 4 are over the top for my taste.  Barry said something wise earlier on in the thread.  

[Rodd]

18 minutes ago, Barry-Wilson said:

Hi Rodd - either of your first two versions for me .  The hardest part of processing I find is learning when to STOP.

I don't think it is flat at all, it is a very good Ha mono.  Neither do I think you need more data, unless it is in a different channel.

CS!

I see what you mean....however, when I view at full resolution I like the details of the last--like high res lunar work almost.  I don't see any overshapening artifacts (actually the same amount of sharpening was used on both--the differences are in slight variations of local histogram equalization, HDR MST (only on bright ridges), and curve tweaks.  Perhaps a 50-50 blend (I tried this but passed it off--maybe I need to revisit).  thanks for your input.  No matter how determined I am to refrain from filling up the post with versions---It always happens.  I guess its pointless anyway as the image will eventually be an HaSHO--or HaRGB, which will require much less aggressive Ha channel processing approach.

Many thanks,

Rodd

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, gnomus said:

Version 1 for me Rodd.  Version 2 is starting to look a little forced and versions 3 and 4 are over the top for my taste.  Barry said something wise earlier on in the thread.  

I like details Gnomus--as long as there are no artifacts (which I do not think there are).  Who knows--tomorrow I may feel the opposite

[Rodd]

26 minutes ago, M106 said:

Lovely shot, i see what you mean about flat, the shadows arent as dark as i'd expect, and the lighter parts are all at a similar level/brightness (if i was doing a quick edit (i was a graphic artist once, but not star shots) i'd use the Light and Shadow sliders in Gimp (or most editors) to get more depth and contrast; still a great image though

Here is the last version but with some of the brighter areas a tad brighter--I did not use Gimp--but the same approach.

[Nick Smith]

Looks great to me Rodd!  How much sharpening and smoothing was applied, or is this basically how it was after a stretch? 

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, Nick Smith said:

Looks great to me Rodd!  How much sharpening and smoothing was applied, or is this basically how it was after a stretch? 

No--not much sharpening--1 pass only with very low values.  But allot of other steps, isolating various parts of the nebula for various reasons.  No star control though

[Nick Smith]

Interesting Rodd.  I am new to deep sky stuff, but I know from planetary that you sometimes catch a really sharp one.  If I were you I would get some colour and then stun us with the full sized version!

[Rodd]

Just now, Nick Smith said:

Interesting Rodd.  I am new to deep sky stuff, but I know from planetary that you sometimes catch a really sharp one.  If I were you I would get some colour and then stun us with the full sized version!

That's the plan--but It will take some time

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Barry-Wilson said:

Hi Rodd - either of your first two versions for me .  The hardest part of processing I find is learning when to STOP.

I don't think it is flat at all, it is a very good Ha mono.  Neither do I think you need more data, unless it is in a different channel.

CS!

here's the blend I spoke of version 1 and version 5 50/50.

[M106]

2 hours ago, Rodd said:

Here is the last version but with some of the brighter areas a tad brighter--I did not use Gimp--but the same approach.

Definitly getting there

Have you tried using light curves? You can get allot of control over the contrast between different levels of brightness, i dont know anything about astrophotography editng, but it seems as if its very similar to HDR, and curves are were you can really make an image pop after you've done the broader light/shadow shifts

 

Looking good neway, the depth is starting to come out nicely; espcially the right hand side of the image, beautiful detail

[Adam J]

Like I said above I really do think its a great image, but you dont seem quite happy with it yourself, so if i was to try and peg down what might be improved / why it may look a little flat then I would guess that it may be because the very center is a tad bright?

One thing I like about the rosette is that if you get it right you get the feeling of falling in into the center, at least I do, like looking into the pupil of a loved ones eye, I think that is the essence of what makes this such an aesthetically pleasing object to the human mind. That effect becomes much more evident in a bi-color image though. 

30mins is a long exposure and its doing you well for the faint outer stuff, but perhaps this is causing you issues with the feeling of depth in the center of what is a relatively bright object, the 'pupil', meaning that you are having to force it a little?

I guess in the end for me, in some specific cases, you can lose the essence of an object in seeking superior technical execution. In a technical sense its amazing that you can pick up such faint wisps hydrogen with modern equipment. But in an artistic sense, perhaps its nice to see a little bit of black in the right places, even if technically there is hydrogen present? 

The idea that less can sometimes be more is probably a highly controversial stand point to take, so I will dig a hole to take cover in while people chuck spears at me.

[Rodd]

41 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Like I said above I really do think its a great image, but you dont seem quite happy with it yourself, so if i was to try and peg down what might be improved / why it may look a little flat then I would guess that it may be because the very center is a tad bright?

One thing I like about the rosette is that if you get it right you get the feeling of falling in into the center, at least I do, like looking into the pupil of a loved ones eye, I think that is the essence of what makes this such an aesthetically pleasing object to the human mind. That effect becomes much more evident in a bi-color image though. 

30mins is a long exposure and its doing you well for the faint outer stuff, but perhaps this is causing you issues with the feeling of depth in the center of what is a relatively bright object, the 'pupil', meaning that you are having to force it a little?

I guess in the end for me, in some specific cases, you can lose the essence of an object in seeking superior technical execution. In a technical sense its amazing that you can pick up such faint wisps hydrogen with modern equipment. But in an artistic sense, perhaps its nice to see a little bit of black in the right places, even if technically there is hydrogen present? 

The idea that less can sometimes be more is probably a highly controversial stand point to take, so I will dig a hole to take cover in while people chuck spears at me.

You make some valid points.  maybe I will add 15 min subs to the stack to try and reduce the brighter areas.  Meanwhile--I was able to get the center where I want iut--but only after I cropped the image.  Here it is.

[alexbb]

15 hours ago, Rodd said:

Final tweaks for now.  I assume from the lack of comments that then image is not up to the standards of the forum.  Your a tough crowd to please.

Hi Rodd,

I much prefer the first version(s) where the dark areas/dust are/is not so black. Impressive image nevertheless, very clean, it's one of the ones of the best for my taste.

Alex

[Singlin]

For my taste it seems a bit over cooked. I would have halved the subs to 15min.

What does it look like when you decrease the exposere in photoshop?

[PatrickGilliland]

 

16 hours ago, Rodd said:

Final tweaks for now.  I assume from the lack of comments that then image is not up to the standards of the forum.  Your a tough crowd to please.

14 hours ago, Rodd said:

Not sure what you mean......But that's OK.  I'll take what I can get.

Hi Rodd, picking up  @swag72 point, it is very difficult for me to see the wood through three trees on your posts, hence if I did comment it would be a glib and ill-considered which is of no value.  This post is not as busy as some but already nine versions of the same image.  Appreciate we can all be little like kids in a sweet shop any there is always something else we can do to an image.  But to be frank with so many versions to look at it is difficult to form an opinion.  Each to their own and all that but i would have a lot more to comment if fewer but more considered edits where posted.  Nothing personal and worthy images but just too many versions to offer a truly considered comment of any value typically.

Maybe a flaw in my character - running joke catchphrase in my household is 'inner monologue please!" used when people are talk aloud about what they are thinking (and I do not need to hear!) 

But as I am here, Ironically for me V1 here is by far the best version - it has processed the bok globules far more delicately providing tonal range which should be there, they are not just black.  It is a tad over sharpened for me (what i call white worms are evident, this occurs when the sharpening has maxed out the well depth equivalent - it's blown the pixel to its max).  Some will occur through sharpening but it should just be the finest of lines if present.  Other than that small issue it was a solid Ha mono.

Paddy 

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, PatrickGilliland said:

 

Hi Rodd, picking up  @swag72 point, it is very difficult for me to see the wood through three trees on your posts, hence if I did comment it would be a glib and ill-considered which is of no value.  This post is not as busy as some but already nine versions of the same image.  Appreciate we can all be little like kids in a sweet shop any there is always something else we can do to an image.  But to be frank with so many versions to look at it is difficult to form an opinion.  Each to their own and all that but i would have a lot more to comment if fewer but more considered edits where posted.  Nothing personal and worthy images but just tThanks for oo many versions to offer a truly considered comment of any value typically.

Maybe a flaw in my character - running joke catchphrase in my household is 'inner monologue please!" used when people are talk aloud about what they are thinking (and I do not need to hear!) 

But as I am here, Ironically for me V1 here is by far the best version - it has processed the bok globules far more delicately providing tonal range which should be there, they are not just black.  It is a tad over sharpened for me (what i call white worms are evident, this occurs when the sharpening has maxed out the well depth equivalent - it's blown the pixel to its max).  Some will occur through sharpening but it should just be the finest of lines if present.  Other than that small issue it was a solid Ha mono.

Paddy 

Thanks for explaining what @Swag meant. I appreciate your input.  Despite your misgivings, you have provided a thoughtful, well considered comment.  You have managed to isolated the trees from the forest.  However, I do not know what you mean by "white worms".  I do not see any processing artifacts when I zoom to 5-7:1.  Perhaps they are related to JPEG?  But I do not compress my JPEGS--PI gives me the option of the amount of compression to use and I don't use any.  Maybe there is native compression associated with the conversion.  Regarding the sharpening:  In image #1 if there was any less sharpening there would be none.  I literally performed 1 pass of sharpening with settings about as low as possible in Ver 1.  It is not possible for that version to be oversharpened. 

I have looked closely at version 1 and the blend  that I posted in a quote to Barry.  The differences between the 2 images are pretty subtle.  My feeling is that the blend is "a bit better"  so I cannot understand how one can feel version 1 is "far better".  Perhaps it is due to my lack of experience and knowledge.  That is why I post on this forum--to gain insight and receive critique from those of you who know what they are doing. 

Below are 2 crops--1 from Version #1 and 1 from the blend of #1 and #5.  To me the differences are subtle--definitely apparent--but really only a matter of tone (shadows a bit darker).  The lights are not any different.  The same details are present so there is nothing new (or at least not very much). 

Thanks for commenting.  To me there is no better way to say--which is better  this or that, then to show pictures.  That is what I though this forum was for.  I apologize for not understanding.  Then again, a child has to be told not to leave his toys on the floor.