IC-5146 LRGB and HaLRGB

[Rodd]

TOA 130, SBIG STT 8300. Astrodon Series E LRGB and 3nm Ha filter.    Total integration time 18.75hours

Lum-15 20 min

Red-25 10 min

Green-20 10 min

Blue-19 10 min

Ha-6 30 min

First image is LRGB and second image is HaLRGB (actually L(Ha) R(Ha)GB)  Not sure I like the Ha for this target.  It doesn't really add any structure--it just turns the target red.  I used about as low a multiplier as possible. 

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Personally, I prefer the first version - the second is a little too purple for my liking.

[ollypenrice]

I might bring the saturation down a notch in the second but I think it's a beaut.

Olly

Edit ... and maybe watch the greens in the background? Very subtle.

[swag72]

Here I much prefer the first...... If you look closely in the second you've lost subtle detail in the cocoon and also the edges from the cocoon to the softer outer regions are harder in the second.... for me I feel that the first is more delicately processed.

[steppenwolf]

I prefer the marginally finer 'detail' in the first version but its a captivating image either way.

[RayD]

First for me also. Just seems to display more detail and shape within the cocoon.  Both nice though.

[Adam J]

The first one for me too. The H-a seems to have reduced contrast...might be interesting to see the H-a only?

[Rodd]

8 hours ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Personally, I prefer the first version - the second is a little too purple for my liking.

I agree

 

7 hours ago, swag72 said:

Here I much prefer the first...... If you look closely in the second you've lost subtle detail in the cocoon and also the edges from the cocoon to the softer outer regions are harder in the second.... for me I feel that the first is more delicately processed.

Thanks Sara--try the most recent below--Far from good but I think its at least on the ight track.  Wondering if more data would help significantly

5 hours ago, steppenwolf said:

I prefer the marginally finer 'detail' in the first version but its a captivating image either way.

Seems to be the consensus.  But I am not very satisfied with either.  How about the third below.

7 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I might bring the saturation down a notch in the second but I think it's a beaut.

Olly

Edit ... and maybe watch the greens in the background? Very subtle.

Thanks Olly Yes--I don't think I solved the green wholly--but I think the 3rd one is starting in the right direction

4 hours ago, Adam J said:

The first one for me too. The H-a seems to have reduced contrast...might be interesting to see the H-a only?

Thanks Adam--I find this target processes like a Rubics Cube.  One step forward and 3 steps back.  Here's a new version.  Might still have green in background, but I think its an improvement in a couple of areas.

 

 

[swag72]

Honestly? ......... I don't think this *final* edit is an improvement on the first at all..... You've lost star colour and colour in the faint outer region.....The whole thing has a real cyan feel about it. For me, this is a perfect example of how you appear do your process..... stick it on the PC for a few days and tweak as you feel fit (without anyone elses thoughts or input) ....... You are able to see yourself how things are progressing after all......

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on just where and why you think the last edit is an improvement? 

I use great imagers such as Fabian Neyer, Robert Gendler, Adam Block etc as pointers..... but of course we all want to produce something unique..... 

http://www.starpointing.com/ccd/cocoon.html sure Fabian Neyer has Ha which makes the background rather different to yours, but you were very close in the first with the outer regions colour.....

[Rodd]

4 minutes ago, swag72 said:

Honestly? ......... I don't think this *final* edit is an improvement on the first at all..... You've lost star colour and colour in the faint outer region.....The whole thing has a real cyan feel about it. For me, this is a perfect example of how you appear do your process..... stick it on the PC for a few days and tweak as you feel fit (without anyone elses thoughts or input) ....... You are able to see yourself how things are progressing after all......

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on just where and why you think the last edit is an improvement? 

I use great imagers such as Fabian Neyer, Robert Gendler, Adam Block etc as pointers..... but of course we all want to produce something unique..... 

http://www.starpointing.com/ccd/cocoon.html sure Fabian Neyer has Ha which makes the background rather different to yours, but you were very close in the first with the outer regions colour.....

Well--I think the stars are much better--cleaner, smaller, rounder.  Maybe the fist's stars are too colorful?.  Also, the core is less noisy and the cloud around the core is cleaner.  I think I pushed the first one too far as far as trying to bring out faint dust/gas beyond the immediate vicinity of the core.  I think I need more data to do that--it looks grainy in first one to me.  But--here's a blend between the two--which I think I like better.  Less noisy.  I like the stars in the last one though

[Rodd]

14 minutes ago, swag72 said:

Honestly? ......... I don't think this *final* edit is an improvement on the first at all..... You've lost star colour and colour in the faint outer region.....The whole thing has a real cyan feel about it. For me, this is a perfect example of how you appear do your process..... stick it on the PC for a few days and tweak as you feel fit (without anyone elses thoughts or input) ....... You are able to see yourself how things are progressing after all......

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on just where and why you think the last edit is an improvement? 

I use great imagers such as Fabian Neyer, Robert Gendler, Adam Block etc as pointers..... but of course we all want to produce something unique..... 

http://www.starpointing.com/ccd/cocoon.html sure Fabian Neyer has Ha which makes the background rather different to yours, but you were very close in the first with the outer regions colour.....

Sara--29 hours vis 13 and change is not trivial (from a much better location I am sure).  But--if you ignore the huge FOV and only concentrate on the FOV of my image in his--its not too far off really.  He knows what he is doing.  I don't.   I think its closer than it is farther

[Allinthehead]

Hi Rodd. The data you have looks really good. As Sarah advised sometimes all you have to do is walk away. Do something else for a few hours/days and come back to it. When you do, it will be very obvious what's wrong with your image. 

[Rodd]

I noticed that Fabian pushed his hist a bit more--so here is a similar action--closer to his (without the monster FOV of course).  Also upped the saturation in certain areas of core--looked washed out to me.  Not as subtle, and I find myself drawn to subtle lately--the reason liked the third one.

 

 

[swag72]

All of my comments are nothing more than my own opinion.....we all have our own ideas about how an image would best look and this is worth remembering.

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, swag72 said:

All of my comments are nothing more than my own opinion.....we all have our own ideas about how an image would best look and this is worth remembering.

True--but in this case Fabians was brought up as a...benchmark?  Just a reference I know--but still a worthy example to look at.  I never try and copy another's image.  But I thought this a good exercise, and am quite pleased with the similarities of the overlapping parts of the 2 images.  Thanks for your help.

Rodd

[swag72]

Just now, Rodd said:

True--but in this case Fabians was brought up as a...benchmark?  Just a reference I know--but still a worthy example to look at.  I never try and copy another's image.  But I thought this a good exercise, and am quite pleased with the similarities of the overlapping parts of the 2 images.  Thanks for your help.

Rodd

No not a benchmark by which all other images should be measured, just a personal opinion on what *I* like....... perhaps others would pick a different example.... That's my point though Rodd. We make these pictures for our own pleasure and should be able to work out ourselves what is wrong.... sure we probably don't always know how to fix 'said problem' but we can usually pinpoint it if we pull away and look at it in a subjective way, as well as looking at the same image for long enough without jumping from one to another on a whim if we feel that someone would like something different.

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, swag72 said:

No not a benchmark by which all other images should be measured, just a personal opinion on what *I* like....... perhaps others would pick a different example.... That's my point though Rodd. We make these pictures for our own pleasure and should be able to work out ourselves what is wrong.... sure we probably don't always know how to fix 'said problem' but we can usually pinpoint it if we pull away and look at it in a subjective way, as well as looking at the same image for long enough without jumping from one to another on a whim if we feel that someone would like something different.

I only posted 2 1 with Ha and 1 without and then 1 more after 7 comments.  Now the train off the rails so to speak.  But still only 5, which is sub par for me.  If I agree with a criticism, I try to respond to that comment by seeing if I can incorporate that criticism into my image.  Out of respect.  I figure while its on page 1--why not.  Soon it will be gone, and I do not bring old threads back to life (someone once told me that was a no-no)

[Allinthehead]

3 minutes ago, swag72 said:

We make these pictures for our own pleasure and should be able to work out ourselves what is wrong.... sure we probably don't always know how to fix 'said problem' but we can usually pinpoint it if we pull away and look at it in a subjective way

It's amazing, when i look at someone else's image i can immediately see what's wrong (again as you said from what is personal preference), but when it comes to my own images it takes longer as i've been staring at it for hours and have lost any subjectivity. I find a nice walk with the dog does the trick, and when i return to the laptop i often laugh at what i thought looked well. I still have a long way to go in this respect and often find myself posting images too soon. 

[Rodd]

Just now, Allinthehead said:

It's amazing, when i look at someone else's image i can immediately see what's wrong (again as you said from what is personal preference), but when it comes to my own images it takes longer as i've been staring at it for hours and have lost any subjectivity. I find a nice walk with the dog does the trick, and when i return to the laptop i often laugh at what i thought looked well. I still have a long way to go in this respect and often find myself posting images too soon. 

No doubt--I am the same.  I am getting better, but I to post too soon.  But its the price to be paid for exuberance.  And this forum is a great place to  get criticism from the masters--while they are looking

Rodd

[swag72]

1 minute ago, Allinthehead said:

It's amazing, when i look at someone else's image i can immediately see what's wrong (again as you said from what is personal preference), but when it comes to my own images it takes longer as i've been staring at it for hours and have lost any subjectivity. I find a nice walk with the dog does the trick, and when i return to the laptop i often laugh at what i thought looked well. I still have a long way to go in this respect and often find myself posting images too soon. 

This is exactly why I process and sit with it on the Desktop for a few days... then I tweak or re-process as I see fit and only when I've left it alone for about 2-3 days do I think it's probably almost finished. As you say, after you've looked at it for so long it's easy to lose objectivity and you need time away so that you can come back to it nice and fresh and with renewed eyes

[ollypenrice]

I measure my background sky in Ps colour sampler, usually going for a target of 23/23/23, though if I'm after faint tidal tails or other nuisances  I accept the need for more dynamic range and bring the background down as low as 20. Surely your last ones are very green? You're trying to kill the magentas, I guess, which green will do, but keep the background the same and alter the green higher up if that's what's needed.

Olly

[ollypenrice]

3 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

It's amazing, when i look at someone else's image i can immediately see what's wrong (again as you said from what is personal preference), but when it comes to my own images it takes longer as i've been staring at it for hours and have lost any subjectivity. I find a nice walk with the dog does the trick, and when i return to the laptop i often laugh at what i thought looked well. I still have a long way to go in this respect and often find myself posting images too soon. 

Probably true for most of us! It certainly is for me. That's why measuring the background sky gives you a reality check.

[RayD]

Thing is, the OP was asking which one people preferred, and there were no negative comments at all for image 1, which most people said was the preferred one?  From then on that was changed to new iterations, when most agreed the first was just fine 

[swag72]

8 minutes ago, Rodd said:

......But still only 5, which is sub par for me. .......

You do know that it's OK to post just one final image?  That's what I find most people do  It's not a competition to see how many can be posted so that one isn't 'sub par' ... 

[Rodd]

Just now, swag72 said:

You do know that it's OK to post just one final image?  That's what I find most people do  

But I thought one of the reasons for posting here was to get help and criticism.    I don't think I agree with the second sentence--certainly I am not that unique?