Bubble Nebula Comparison

[Rodd]

I specifically reshot the bubble in hopes to better my previous attempt, which I think was over processed.  Both were taken with the TOA 130 at native focal length, but one was with the STT-8300 and the other with the ASI 1600.  This was not so much a comparison of the cameras.....I don't really see much of a difference.  It was a comparison of my processing skills.  It has been a couplemonths since I captured the recent image I have never posted this question because I thought the result was obvious--but I am not so sure now considering the likes obtained on Astrobin.  So, here is a blind comparison--Originally the FOVs were about the same--but I cropped one for antithetical reasons--that being, the outer regions of the image did not have the signal strength of the uncropped one.  maybe that IS a difference in cameras--but that is for another query.

Which is the better image?  I may have stepped into the same gopher hole!

Thanks for looking.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Rodd

[Adam J]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

I specifically reshot the bubble in hopes to better my previous attempt, which I think was over processed.  Both were taken with the TOA 130 at native focal length, but one was with the STT-8300 and the other with the ASI 1600.  This was not so much a comparison of the cameras.....I don't really see much of a difference.  It was a comparison of my processing skills.  It has been a couplemonths since I captured the recent image I have never posted this question because I thought the result was obvious--but I am not so sure now considering the likes obtained on Astrobin.  So, here is a blind comparison--Originally the FOVs were about the same--but I cropped one for antithetical reasons--that being, the outer regions of the image did not have the signal strength of the uncropped one.  maybe that IS a difference in cameras--but that is for another query.

Which is the better image?  I may have stepped into the same gopher hole!

Thanks for looking.

 

The actually bubble is nicer for me in the bottom image and the rest of the core nebulocity is nicer in the top image. But at the same time I would say that there are outer sections of the top image that have been pushed too hard. 

[jetstream]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Which is the better image? 

The top image is stunning and for me wins hands down. My opinion does not diminish the second images excellence however- great work Rodd!

[Rodd]

20 minutes ago, Adam J said:

The actually bubble is nicer for me in the bottom image and the rest of the core nebulocity is nicer in the top image. But at the same time I would say that there are outer sections of the top image that have been pushed too hard. 

I would have to agree with that pretty much 100%--except maybe the outer areas being pushed too hard, not sure about that--definitely the inner areas though (especially the bubble).  Thanks for the response

Rodd

[Rodd]

7 minutes ago, jetstream said:

The top image is stunning and for me wins hands down. My opinion does not diminish the second images excellence however- great work Rodd!

Did you look at the image at full resolution?  The oversharpening artifacts don't bother you?

Rodd

[Adam J]

2 minutes ago, Rodd said:

I would have to agree with that pretty much 100%--except maybe the outer areas being pushed too hard, not sure about that--definitely the inner areas though (especially the bubble).  Thanks for the response

Rodd

you dont actually say which way around the cameras are?

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, Rodd said:

Did you look at the image at full resolution?  The oversharpening artifacts don't bother you?

Rodd

No, just the image presented here- I'll check it out.

[Rodd]

7 minutes ago, Adam J said:

you dont actually say which way around the cameras are?

I didn't want there to be any bias--a blind assessment. 

Rodd

[Adam J]

1 minute ago, Rodd said:

I didn't want there to be any bias--a blind assessment. 

Rodd

PM me?

[jetstream]

Ok, I see what you mean, I think.

But..

As a non imager and just looking at the image presented here, non full resolution- it is fantastic. If I open up full res and at full mag I see some things. However, for most of us just looking at it, without trying to pick it apart- it is the winner, IMHO. Clearly.

Sometimes I think imagers forget most image viewers are not imagers! lol!

[Rodd]

10 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Ok, I see what you mean, I think.

But..

As a non imager and just looking at the image presented here, non full resolution- it is fantastic. If I open up full res and at full mag I see some things. However, for most of us just looking at it, without trying to pick it apart- it is the winner, IMHO. Clearly.

Sometimes I think imagers forget most image viewers are not imagers! lol!

You have managed to fill my bubble then pop it with a pin! 😄  Its great that you think so highly of the first image, but a bit disheartening to realize I wasted 27 hours on the second!!!  Which, of course, means I must spend another 27 in a second attempt!

Rodd

[jetstream]

Just now, Rodd said:

You have managed to fill my bubble then pop it with a pin! 😄  Its great that you think so highly of the first image, but a bit disheartening to realize I wasted 27 hours on the second!!!  Which, of course, means I must spend another 27 in a second attempt!

Rodd

No man, they are both great images!

I look at images from the perspective of what "grabs" me and holds me- not technical perfection.

After you mentioned noise (I presume) I found some in the dust pillars- I enjoy imaging the Aurora and have very limited ability but did learn where noise etc can hide. The whole package of the first image is an attention grabber IMHO.

If the first image was in a magazine you would "win" I believe.

I look at these images more as art than technically perfect representations. You did not waste 27hrs- but you may have found out what pleases some people more than others. Mind you others may like the second one better!

[Adam J]

3 minutes ago, jetstream said:

No man, they are both great images!

I look at images from the perspective of what "grabs" me and holds me- not technical perfection.

After you mentioned noise (I presume) I found some in the dust pillars- I enjoy imaging the Aurora and have very limited ability but did learn where noise etc can hide. The whole package of the first image is an attention grabber IMHO.

If the first image was in a magazine you would "win" I believe.

I look at these images more as art than technically perfect representations. You did not waste 27hrs- but you may have found out what pleases some people more than others. Mind you others may like the second one better!

Yes exactly as but for example I view it differently and am more impressed by the detail in the bubble in image 2. 

[jetstream]

Just now, Adam J said:

Yes exactly as but for example I view it differently and am more impressed by the detail in the bubble in image 2. 

I see your perspective Adam and respect it for sure.

For me the first image isn;t just about the Bubble- Rodd nailed the area surrounding it with draping dust and those pillars... fantastic. My reference is for the whole image, not any single part of it, for me its the whole package and the razor sharpness and brightness of the Bubble itself than wins me over.

[astro mick]

Rod.

What is it you are trying to achieve?Do you just want to process the hell out of it untill your totally confused,or do you actually really look at your image,and think that,s a really nice interesting Nebulae.

I woud suspect the first,but I may be wrong.

Mick.

 

[Star101]

With my eyes I see artifacts on the bubble in the first image close up...Also slightly softer image. The second looks cleaner, sharper close up and less artifacts. Second shows more detail to me. And that's where it wins...I like detail  Both are nice images though.

[vlaiv]

It's rather obvious which image is from which camera

Therein lies part of explanation why some people can find upper image better - it has more depth / SNR because it was captured with certain camera (not due to camera being better, but one feature of that camera vs the other camera make it go deeper in this case - can be remedied with certain processing steps).

I personally like second image (and may be a bit biased by knowing which was taken with what camera ) - but I think it is down to not "blowing it up" in second image and clearness of the bubble, although it is not as sharpened as much (maybe a bit would not hurt in second image).

 

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, astro mick said:

Rod.

What is it you are trying to achieve?Do you just want to process the hell out of it untill your totally confused,or do you actually really look at your image,and think that,s a really nice interesting Nebulae.

I woud suspect the first,but I may be wrong.

Mick.

 

Your post confused me.  Not sure?

Rodd

[Rodd]

16 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Yes exactly as but for example I view it differently and am more impressed by the detail in the bubble in image 2. 

 

12 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I see your perspective Adam and respect it for sure.

For me the first image isn;t just about the Bubble- Rodd nailed the area surrounding it with draping dust and those pillars... fantastic. My reference is for the whole image, not any single part of it, for me its the whole package and the razor sharpness and brightness of the Bubble itself than wins me over.

[Rodd]

10 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

It's rather obvious which image is from which camera

Therein lies part of explanation why some people can find upper image better - it has more depth / SNR because it was captured with certain camera (not due to camera being better, but one feature of that camera vs the other camera make it go deeper in this case - can be remedied with certain processing steps).

I personally like second image (and may be a bit biased by knowing which was taken with what camera ) - but I think it is down to not "blowing it up" in second image and clearness of the bubble, although it is not as sharpened as much (maybe a bit would not hurt in second image).

 

Thanks Vlad....I tried sharpening the bubble in second for hours....there actually was quite a bit done, including deconvolution in linear phase.  I did not want to overdo things though.  At first I felt that the bubble was a bit soft, a bit fuzzy as it were...but if you look at bubble images taken at very long focal lengths through big scopes--even the Hubble, its apparent that the bubble is not smooth--it is wavy and irregular at close in scales....so much so I do not really like it.  So I think the smoothness of the first bubble--is a byproduct of over sharpening and is not authentic.  But, mind you, I am not fully satisfied with the second image.  Far from it. 

Rodd

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, astro mick said:

Rod.

What is it you are trying to achieve?Do you just want to process the hell out of it untill your totally confused,or do you actually really look at your image,and think that,s a really nice interesting Nebulae.

I woud suspect the first,but I may be wrong.

Mick.

 

Ahh...now I see....your asking a foolish question.

Rodd

[astro mick]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Ahh...now I see....your asking a foolish question.

Rodd

Not meant to be foolish Rodd,i have commented on your exerllent images before,and in no way would I undermine your acheivements,as they are way above mine.

Its just that you self criticise every image you do,when really they are exerllent.

Don't wish to offend at all.

Still friends!!!!!!!!!

Mick.

[Rodd]

17 minutes ago, astro mick said:

Not meant to be foolish Rodd,i have commented on your exerllent images before,and in no way would I undermine your acheivements,as they are way above mine.

Its just that you self criticise every image you do,when really they are exerllent.

Don't wish to offend at all.

Still friends!!!!!!!!!

Mick.

That's good to hear.  With me its all about the image.  My goal is to produce images that are up to the quality I have seen in other's work that blows me away.  If I am ultra critical of my own work it is because I see the short falls and, probably more importantly, I have struggled with them through processing so they stand out like sore thumbs to me.  It seems to me that to spend the amount of time and effort on creating one of these images almost demands a super high level of critique, or why bother?  I am a perfectionist admittedly....in principle, not necessarily in application, though that is the goal.   When I see an image that "has it"  I just know...."there it is"  I can almost taste it.  I do not feel that way about any of my images--though a hint of flavor has been experienced.   Then again, those images general do not get a very warm response on the forums, so who the heck knows?

Rodd

 

[carastro]

I like both but if you want me to choose I would choose the top (uncropped) one which seems to be smoother from a noise point of view and I prefer the sharper details.

See later post

Carole 

Edited October 1, 2019 by carastro

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, carastro said:

I like both but if you want me to choose I would choose the top (uncropped) one which seems to be smoother from a noise point of view and I prefer the sharper details.

Carole 

Did you click on it, or just look on the forum page?

Rodd