Wizard Nebula

[AbsolutelyN]

First attempt at the Wizard Nebular in Cepheus. 6.5 hours over last two nights with Esprit 100 and ZWO 1600MMPro. 

32x HA @ 5min
22x OIII @ 5min
25x SII @ 5min

https://www.astrobin.com/413346/

Edited July 4, 2019 by AbsolutelyN

[alan potts]

Wow, stunning clarity in that shot.

[AbsolutelyN]

42 minutes ago, alan potts said:

Wow, stunning clarity in that shot.

Thanks. I was quite please with data from a single night (if you can call 3 hours a night) but doubling it really made a big difference in resolving detail. This is a quick processing of just 3 hrs.  

Edited July 4, 2019 by AbsolutelyN

[Rodd]

The 3 hour version is nice

Rodd

[Demonperformer]

Very nice result.

It is interesting what people see ... when i first looked at your picture, I didn't see a wizard, but a reptile (probably a lizard, but possibly a crocodilian). Apologies for mutilating your pic, but ...

[AbsolutelyN]

Yes I can see your reptile easier than I can see a wizard. To me it looks like how I'd imagine a rift in space time / wormhole portal entrance to look. Can just imagine seeing this in the sky and an alien spaceship coming through. Perhaps just an overactive imagination....

[Gina]

I can't see a wizard in it either.  I think whoever called it a wizard had an over-active imagination! 🤣

[carastro]

Lovely second version image. 

This is how I see the Wizard. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by carastro

[MarsG76]

Excellent.. the second version, aka 3 hour process, is better with its darker black level (space) and therefore more contrast.....

[AbsolutelyN]

15 minutes ago, MarsG76 said:

Excellent.. the second version, aka 3 hour process, is better with its darker black level (space) and therefore more contrast.....

Thanks, that’s interesting and really appreciated. You don’t always see things like that when too close to the image. There is something about the 3 hr version I like but couldn’t quite figure out what.

Edited July 6, 2019 by AbsolutelyN

[MarsG76]

14 minutes ago, AbsolutelyN said:

Thanks, that’s interesting and really appreciated. You don’t always see things like that when too close to the image. There is something about the 3 hr version I like but couldn’t quite figure out what.

When you're processing, you want to keep the blackness of space at the RGB level 15-20 / 255 on a 8 bit scale (I use the color pick tool on photoshop to determine what the black level is)... this way the image has good contrast but the blacks (and hence the fainter detail) isn't clipped and lost making the image look like a 4th generation VHS copy..... andlook more realistic... 

the other thing you nailed was the amount of color saturation.... yours look good and realistic, but a lot of astrophotos are over saturated making them look cartoony or like a drawring/panting  and not as photo realistic....

[AbsolutelyN]

Thanks, I think I'll have a look at reprocessing this one with that in mind, I completely see it now. At first I was absolutely clipping the blacks too much with astro images so have been really trying to avoid this and probably gone too far in opposite direction. Agree on saturation - so easy to go too far but I've always tried to keep things realistic in my photography. 

[AbsolutelyN]

Third version of this image. The contrast has been increased by lowering the black point as kindly suggested by MarsG76 ... though possibly still not low enough? After clipping so much data previously I have an aversion to going too dark. This one is also full resolution for any pixel peepers (like me). Any feedback much appreciated. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by AbsolutelyN

[carastro]

I like version 2 the best,.

Carole 

[AbsolutelyN]

Thanks Carol. Is it because the composition is possibly improved by the blue jet of gas sticking out to the upper left? I can absolutely see regarding image composition that I prefer that, the shape it creates seems to have been lost with more data.  Interesting in terms of more data doesn't necessarily mean better image.  

[Gina]

Yes, I agree - I prefer version 2 though it's a close thing.  Lovely image.

[carastro]

Quote

Thanks Carol. Is it because the composition is possibly improved by the blue jet of gas sticking out to the upper left? I can absolutely see regarding image composition that I prefer that, the shape it creates seems to have been lost with more data.  Interesting in terms of more data doesn't necessarily mean better image.  

I prefer V2 to V1 as it is smoother.  V1 and V3 look over sharpened to me and some of the detail has been lost on V3.  In fact V3 looks just like V1, did you post the right image?

Carole 

Edited July 6, 2019 by carastro

[Skipper Billy]

Does this help?