NGC 7822 in Bi-Colour

[Xiga]

Edit - Ok here's the new version - and please, for the love of God ignore the monstrosity below it! ? 

*************************************************************************************************************************

Hi guys

I had to wait a while, but I finally finished (and by finished, I of course mean version 1, revision 1 ? ) my go at NGC 7822. I captured 3 hrs of Ha on this back on April 5 but have had to wait to now to get the rest. So last Saturday night I shot about another 3 hrs worth of Ha, and the following night I nabbed just under 4 hrs of Oiii. So all in it’s 9.7 hrs in total.
The Oiii signal was pretty weak, and coupled with the fact I didn’t have that much exposure to work with meant that I had to give it a big old stretch to bring out the fainter areas. Thankfully Tonemapping gets the job done ? This time I used a mixture of Neat Image and Topaz Labs Adjust to clean up the noise in the stretched Oiii data and it definitely produced a cleaner Oiii file than my previous tonemapping efforts on other objects. In hindsight I could really have done with more Oiii exposure than Ha on this one (rather than only half!) but given my limited opportunities to capture data these days I just work with whatever I can get.

Workflow is my usual NB one – pre-processed in APP and finished off in PS. Starless Ha and Oiii masters were created and used for the Tonemap. They were combined using Annie’s Astro Action ‘Hubble Palette Creation’ which requires an Sii file. Normally I synthesize the Sii based on a particular blend of Ha & Oiii, but in this case I opted to just use the Oiii in full, so technically I suppose this is an OHO combination. From then onwards it’s the usual Selective Colour Adjustments and with the Ha added as Luminance. If I get the chance I might try and get some RGB stars to mix in later.

I’m in two minds about the Framing. I think it looks better in Portrait, but then Landscape fills the screen more. What do you guys think? C&C welcome as always.

I’ll probably scale the image down by 50% when I’m completely happy with it. I don’t think it supports viewing at 100%.

18 x 1200s Ha (Baader)

11 x 1200s Oiii (Baader)

Nikon D5300, SW 80ED, HEQ5-Pro.

 

 

[groberts]

Very nice Ciarán. ?

[Allinthehead]

That's a beauty 

[Xiga]

You two are very kind. Too kind I feel to say what you really think ? 

Now I've had the chance to look at this for a few days now, I've come to the conclusion I really don't like it myself! It's an unusual object - the patterns in the dark nebula look unnatural, almost like artefacts from too much sharpening. The only problem is, I didn't apply any sharpening to this at all! Those really are the shapes that are in it. It really needs more data, but I just can't devote any more time to it due to our limited clear skies, and my limited imaging opportunities. I'm hoping the reason for my disliking of it is purely down to pushing the data too hard.

I'm going back to the drawing board on this one, and will try a much more toned-down approach. While I do like the 'pop' in the image, due to the tonal range, I think a more muted version will look more natural. I had to push the Oiii really hard to bring it up to the (already high) Ha level prior to combining. So i'm going to drop the Ha stretch significantly, so that I don't need to push the Oiii so hard to match it. Hopefully that will help things. I'll probably also try a few different colour blends too, just to see if happen across one I like.

[tooth_dr]

I think that’s a good assessment Ciaran. It’s quite a beautiful rendition but I do agree the dark areas look a little bit artificial. Hope you don’t mind me saying this. 

[Xiga]

7 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

I think that’s a good assessment Ciaran. It’s quite a beautiful rendition but I do agree the dark areas look a little bit artificial. Hope you don’t mind me saying this. 

Not in the slightest Adam ? Quite the opposite actually. I rely on you guys to just give it to me straight. I'll pretty much never take offense, no matter what the feedback.

I knew it myself tbh. Serves me right for not following the 1st Commandment of AP:

Thy shall not post thy's first goeth at processing, especially if thy's eyes have becometh crossed from over-stareth at they screen, and the clocketh hath rung 3 times past the endeth of the day.

[Xiga]

So after going back to the drawing board, this is now much more like how it should have looked first time around (honestly, i don't know what i was thinking, lol). 

This time around i brought the Ha stretch way, way down from where i previously had it. I stupidly over-stretched it, and consequently lost all the detail in the process. I also changed the combination method too - i assigned Ha to Red, Oiii to Blue, and then synthesised the Green using one of Carboni's actions. Then added the Ha and Luminosity. 

What do you guys think? Especially regarding the overall brightness. Is it now too dark/dull, or is it ok? 

ps - There's something weird going on. Whenever i view the image online (be it here, Flickr or Astrobin) it looks noticeably grainier than it does when i view it on my computer. And i'm even comparing the .jpg and not the .tiff file, so it's not that. My eyes definitely are not tricking me, i can clearly see a difference. Has anyone else come across this? ?

[tooth_dr]

A million times better ciaran. 

[wimvb]

Great rework!

[gorann]

I would be very pleased with the new version - which I assume is the top image in his thread. It got me a bit confused that you did not put i in with your last comment but edited it into the first post.

[gorann]

Regarding you other comment, I think we all often find that images look differnt after we post them - sometimes for the better but often for the worse. However, it is usually not so much in detail or graininess as in brightness and colour. I often first notice gradients in my images after posting them here. I suspect that there are some image processing going on at the sites. If you download your posted image and look at it in PS does it look like the original jpg or like the one you see at the net site?

[Xiga]

3 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

A million times better ciaran. 

Thanks Adam.

3 hours ago, wimvb said:

Great rework!

Cheers Wim.

[Xiga]

34 minutes ago, gorann said:

I would be very pleased with the new version - which I assume is the top image in his thread. It got me a bit confused that you did not put i in with your last comment but edited it into the first post.

Yes that probably was a bit confusing! But I wanted it to be the 1st image people would see when opening the thread, and not the original version, for obvious reasons ?

[Xiga]

26 minutes ago, gorann said:

Regarding you other comment, I think we all often find that images look differnt after we post them - sometimes for the better but often for the worse. However, it is usually not so much in detail or graininess as in brightness and colour. I often first notice gradients in my images after posting them here. I suspect that there are some image processing going on at the sites. If you download your posted image and look at it in PS does it look like the original jpg or like the one you see at the net site?

That's a good idea Gorann. I will test this tonight after work.

Edit - ok it gets weirder! I'm looking at the online versions now on my work monitor and, the additional graininess I was seeing last night is no longer visible! What the deuce?! I'm going to have to check again tonight to make sure i'm not officially losing my marbles ?

[don4l]

This latest version looks very good. 

Your earlier comment about the dark bits looking artifical was very pertinent.  I've noticed the same effect in other images of the same object.

Toning down the Ha has really improved the image. I'm going to try this in future.

[tooth_dr]

1 hour ago, Xiga said:

Yes that probably was a bit confusing! But I wanted it to be the 1st image people would see when opening the thread, and not the original version, for obvious reasons ?

I'd be asking the mods to permanently delete it ?

[Xiga]

20 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

I'd be asking the mods to permanently delete it ?

???

I think I can delete it myself if I wanted to.

I did think about it. But decided to leave it up there, as a constant reminder not go pushing my data into places where it has no business being in the first place!

[Xiga]

Regarding the image looking different online on my home monitor, I came across this comment on a thread over on CN:

...But now I wonder if the wide gamut is why I see different things on my monitor than when I upload the image to Astrobin. 

Yes it is. Your browser is probably at fault for not converting the colors into the monitor's color gamut. The internet runs on the small sRGB color space, and most browsers assume that is the capability of the monitor too. Your monitor is capable of more according to the message you paraphrased.

My old monitor died a few months back and I got a new one, a BenQ PD2700Q. The description of it says this:

AQCOLOUR technology: Factory-calibrated 100% sRGB and Rec.709 colour space of accurate colours for professional creative work.

I'd be amazed if I haven't been saving my Jpgs (which I use for uploading online) in anything other than sRGB but I will have to check later. Actually now that I think about it, I did re-install Windows afresh a couple of months back. I wonder if there is some setting in either Windows or PS that I haven't set properly. ?

[wimvb]

1 hour ago, Xiga said:

???

I think I can delete it myself if I wanted to.

I did think about it. But decided to leave it up there, as a constant reminder not go pushing my data into places where it has no business being in the first place!

Well put. I do that all to often.

[wimvb]

5 hours ago, Xiga said:

the additional graininess I was seeing last night is no longer visible!

That's the sand man at work. The proper PixInsight method for that is SENR, not to be confused with SCNR. ?

 

 

 

 

(SENR: Sleepy Eyes Noise Reduction)