Screen Settings and Sh2-132

[Rodd]

I think I have finally managed to get a handle on my processing screen settings.  I have had a problem not seeing what others see until I email the image to myself and view it on my desktop--tedious.  Here is a reprocess of some old data and the last, and at the time best, version of Sh2-132.  I really did not do anything differently than I did last time--so any differences are pretty much the result of the screen settings.  The question is, are my current screen settings closer to what most folks see, or should I try another set.  On my screen the answer is obvious, but I have come to not trust my screen's depiction.  Please let me know what you think and hopefully I can eliminate 1 persistent trouble.  Many thanks.

First image is new version with modified screen settings

Second image is original--If this is what everyone saw when I posted the image --I apologize sincerely.

 

 

 

[Rudeviewer]

I don't ever recall seeing the blotchyness in the 2nd image you have posted up here.  The first image is very nice and clean however.  If the blotchyness is still there it doesn't show itself with the black levels you have presented it with.   

[gorann]

Rodd,

I know the feeling but not the answer. I have also posted images several times that showed gradients and looked quite different after posting, especially on SGL (less so on Astrobin or even Facebook). Since I have the same monitor when I look at my images in PS as when I look at them after posting, I have the feeling that something is done to them by the SGL server, and that is has some nasty algorithms aimed at disclosing imperfections.

Great image by the way! (the first one being better of course but maybe only after posting here?)

[Rodd]

7 minutes ago, gorann said:

Rodd,

I know the feeling but not the answer. I have also posted images several times that showed gradients and looked quite different after posting, especially on SGL (less so on Astrobin or even Facebook). Since I have the same monitor when I look at my images in PS as when I look at them after posting, I have the feeling that something is done to them by the SGL server, and that is has some nasty algorithms aimed at disclosing imperfections.

Great image by the way! (the first one being better of course but maybe only after posting here?)

No..Take a look at the image on my Astrobin site (RAD)--I only have the free account so am limited to 10 images.  But there are a bunch of versions of this image there.  I had posted  these previous versions thinking they were done for the most part.  Now that I have changed the screen settings, they look terrible to me on my screen.  I think its the screen (though what you say regarding the server changing images may very well be true as well).

[gorann]

4 minutes ago, Rodd said:

No..Take a look at the image on my Astrobin site (RAD)--I only have the free account so am limited to 10 images.  But there are a bunch of versions of this image there.  I had posted  these previous versions thinking they were done for the most part.  Now that I have changed the screen settings, they look terrible to me on my screen.  I think its the screen (though what you say regarding the server changing images may very well be true as well).

I had a look at this image at Astrobin and you are right, the second but last one look "terrible" while you last one is great. What is the difference, did you just darken the background with curves? Must be something with you monitor then (darkening the background), but unfortunately I know zero about monitor settings (but I should learn more). In any case, why would e-mailing yourself the images help if you look at them on the same monitor?

[Rodd]

Just now, gorann said:

I had a look at this image at Astrobin and you are right, the second but last one look "terrible" while you last one is great. What is the difference, did you just darken the background with curves? Must be something with you monitor then (darkening the background), but unfortunately I know zero about monitor settings (but I should learn more). In any case, why would e-mailing yourself the images help if you look at them on the same monitor?

I email them to myself so I can view them on my desktop monitor.  It is a relatively inexpensive monitor, while my laptop, processing monitor is a high end 4K screen.  I recalibrated the gray levels, gamma levels and colors in the processing screen.  I reprocessed the image from scratch with the new settings. Now, the images I processed before the change look terrible.  Basically very bright and overblown.  I never saw the blotches in the older image because my settings did not let me.  This was why I would post an image and could not understand some of the critique.  Hopefully, these settings are more appropriate.  So far, I think so. 

[gorann]

Sounds like the problem may be solved then and your images will be impeccable from here on!

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, gorann said:

Sounds like the problem may be solved then and your images will be impeccable from here on!

One can dream.  The jury is still out.  It will take a reprocess of several to really see.  A few of the better ones look pretty good--maybe a bit bright.  For example, the attached image was modified only with a drop in the left hand side of the histogram.  No other changes were made--basically darkening the background--though I think the background is still to bright and perhaps too red..  Maybe the head is too light as well--so basically its a brightness and chroma level.  the image probably needs a reprocess from scrath (ALL of my images...oh no!)

[gorann]

Well, you never know. It is not optimal to process images on a poorly adjusted monitor (I should not talk since I have never adjusted my monitors). So, you may be sitting on a gold mine that just needs reprocessing.

On the positive side: plenty to do on cloudy nights and you did not find this out after having been doing this for 10 years.......

[Rodd]

Here is a better example.  This was a quick reprocess to further assess the screen settings. First image old version, second image version with new screen settings.  The first image is a drizzled image, which is 4x larger--so full image zoomed is not the best way to look at it--its too much.  I don't have an older non drizzled image to post.  But regular size shows the difference.  I can't just go to my old images and reduce brightness--it does not yield the same results.  They have to be reprocessed.  So far, I am fairly convinced that I am on the right track with the screen settings.

[gorann]

The first one is good, but the second one is fabulous, in my humble opinion!

You really shine in NB imaging Rodd!

My only slight comment is a minor one and very easily fixed (and this is not only about your images) is that it is a mirror image of how this object is oriented up there. I see this often also in other persons images and it maybe just that it confuses me but why not flip and orient images in the way they would look like if you could see them by naked eye (or zoom in with a sky map)?