Bubble Nebula Comparison

[Rodd]

2 hours 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.

I have had some time to think about it and I can sum it up pretty simply....If my images are so good, why don't they get more likes and/or comments?  I can only assume it is because they are lacking in some way--hence my intense scrutiny.   Likes have me completely confused.   Great images tend to get many likes.  In general, the better the image, the more likes.  But I seem to buck this pattern.  Some of my best images (yes there are some decent ones) get what seems to me to be a low number of likes.  So, to answer your original question....I actually look at the images (rather intensely, probably more akin to scrutinizing them on many levels) in efforts to make improvements that will be recognized by those that do not feel the image is much better than average--hence the limited number of likes.  I learned in this way.  When I started out my images were clubbed pretty hard and I listened and tried to improve based on tips from the masters.  As I improved, or corrected a fault--I would get likes.  I would see great images that got many likes and tried to emulate them.  And I improved.  I once complained that I received few comments, and someone said, its easier to say you like it by hitting the like button.  So after that, I accepted likes to be as good as comments.   I have said this many times before--usually with the same end result....a big argument, but good images get a lot of likes and/or comments.  So, I must be doing something wrong.  Lord knows these great images (your words) cause me to gasp in horror the first thing in the morning--then they improve to pretty decent images by dinner.   Or do they? 

Rodd

Edited September 24, 2019 by Rodd

[Geoff Barnes]

Good grief, this makes me sooo glad I'm just a simple, stress free observer!

I do really admire your images though Rodd.  

[jetstream]

54 minutes ago, Rodd said:

If my images are so good, why don't they get more likes and/or comments?

Your images are very good Rodd- some better than others just like everyone else's.

Hey, just a thought- do you belong to the "in crowd" here? Some get more responses (perhaps?) than others regardless of observational or image quality-well maybe I'm wrong.😀 probably am...

[carastro]

Quote

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

Clicked on both, though it took ages to bring up the magnified version, so went onto Astrobin too, but could only see one of the versions.

I think you place too much concern on likes, I think sometimes people give them as a courtesy, sometimes because of the amount of work you put into them, and on Astrobin I think many are because they have followers and friends.

There are some people way up in the Trending AP list yet produce very basic and sometimes poor images and I don't have a clue how they get into that position, maybe because they enter into dialogue with people, follow them and get reciprocated.  I know my likes went up after I started following a lot more people, who in turn started liking me.  Certainly on AB I am convinced it is a case of your image being spotted more than whether it is better than another of the same target.

Yes, it's always good to endeavour to improve, always try to do better, but don't get so hung up on likes. 

Carole 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by carastro

[alexbb]

I prefer the second image, clearly, but both are very nice!

There are a few things I'd do to the second image.
At deconvolution, I'd tame down the highlights by increasing the deringing global bright. Maybe I would apply the deconvolution only to brighter areas.
The other thing would be to sharpen the final image with some MLT.
And maybe, just maybe, run some more aggressive ACDNR on chrominance.

I like especially that the stars have no artifacts, a thing I fail to achieve many times mainly because I get tired/bored to edit an image for so long.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Geoff Barnes said:

Good grief, this makes me sooo glad I'm just a simple, stress free observer!

I do really admire your images though Rodd.  

And i do miss the eyepiece--haven't looked through one in years.  Can't see that much from my sky though.  Had a Meade RCX 14" that was a bit dissapointing--no nebula was visible.

Rodd

[tooth_dr]

2 hours ago, Rodd said:

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

Rodd

Without clicking the top one looks better. On clicking it’s a different story however. From my ‘very limited’ experience it looks too smooth, and over processed on the outer areas.  The second image has a very fine colour noise running through it. Have you tried to remove it?

[Jkulin]

8 hours ago, Rodd said:

 

For me this one is far better Rod, less noise, less magenta and a cleaner image. I like it a lot.

[Jkulin]

Duplicated

Edited September 24, 2019 by Jkulin

[Rodd]

31 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Your images are very good Rodd- some better than others just like everyone else's.

Hey, just a thought- do you belong to the "in crowd" here? Some get more responses (perhaps?) than others regardless of observational or image quality-well maybe I'm wrong.😀 probably am...

No--i am not in the "in" crowd.  Haven't figured out how to gain access to the coveted inner circle!😀

Rodd

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Without clicking the top one looks better. On clicking it’s a different story however. From my ‘very limited’ experience it looks too smooth, and over processed on the outer areas.  The second image has a very fine colour noise running through it. Have you tried to remove it?

My goal was to not use as much noise comtrol--so I probably underreacted.  Also--I get color mottling quite frequetly.  Not sure why

Rodd

Edited September 24, 2019 by Rodd

[Rodd]

36 minutes ago, carastro said:

Clicked on both, though it took ages to bring up the magnified version, so went onto Astrobin too, but could only see one of the versions.

I think you place too much concern on likes, I think sometimes people give them as a courtesy, sometimes because of the amount of work you put into them, and on Astrobin I think many are because they have followers and friends.

There are some people way up in the Trending AP list yet produce very basic and sometimes poor images and I don't have a clue how they get into that position, maybe because they enter into dialogue with people, follow them and get reciprocated.  I know my likes went up after I started following a lot more people, who in turn started liking me.  Certainly on AB I am convinced it is a case of your image being spotted more than whether it is better than another of the same target.

Yes, it's always good to endeavour to improve, always try to do better, but don't get so hung up on likes. 

Carole 

 

Yeah, yeah...I know.  But how else to judge without sending someone a private message and asking--a bit intrusive.  Anyway--I appreciate all the response on this thread.  Thnak you

Rodd

[Kinch]

Hi Rodd.....I think you will take one thing from this thread.....most people do not "Pixel Peep" and it is just first impression that gets the likes....as someone said, it is just a simple 'push of a button'. Like you, I can spend hours on an image because one thing or another just annoys me about it, but the end result generally wont make it any more of a winner for those that just flick through the images. I have seen it time & time again, to get 'likes' you need colourful, attention grabbing images - not presented in highest resolution. To get satisfaction though, you correct the 'nasties' that you see on your high resolution monitor....so that you feel satisfied with the processing. The important bottom line is...don't substitute 'Likes' for satisfaction.....or perhaps putting it another way.....don't seek to get satisfaction from getting 'likes'.....get it from your creation.

It seems that the top image here is more appealing to most but when you open the door to the higher resolution its bad points become very apparent. The 2nd image is an improvement but someone also pointed out where that can been improved. So neither are perfect (and in truth a lot of APODs are not either) but I can tell that the second sits better with you. So you have improved on a previous effort.....take satisfaction out of that. 🙂 

[PhotoGav]

I prefer the second image. It is not as ‘spikey’ as the first, which, to me, appears over sharpened and over noise reductioned (if that’s a word!?!). The second has good detail and is more naturally soft looking. The stars are tighter in the second one too. I’m intrigued to know which image was with which camera...

As for likes - if that’s what you are after, post on Instagram or Facebook!! This forum is all about sharing knowledge and helping each other to get the most out of this most excellent pursuit (note I didn’t say hobby, I think most of us are way beyond hobbyist with our dedication!). Keep it up Rodd, always enjoy your images and posts.

Finally, on a personal preference note, I would love to see redder H alpha areas rather than the false orangey colour. As I say, that’s just what I like!

[Freddie]

11 hours ago, Rodd said:

I have had some time to think about it and I can sum it up pretty simply....If my images are so good, why don't they get more likes and/or comments?  I can only assume it is because they are lacking in some way--hence my intense scrutiny.   Likes have me completely confused.   Great images tend to get many likes.  In general, the better the image, the more likes.  But I seem to buck this pattern.  Some of my best images (yes there are some decent ones) get what seems to me to be a low number of likes.  So, to answer your original question....I actually look at the images (rather intensely, probably more akin to scrutinizing them on many levels) in efforts to make improvements that will be recognized by those that do not feel the image is much better than average--hence the limited number of likes.  I learned in this way.  When I started out my images were clubbed pretty hard and I listened and tried to improve based on tips from the masters.  As I improved, or corrected a fault--I would get likes.  I would see great images that got many likes and tried to emulate them.  And I improved.  I once complained that I received few comments, and someone said, its easier to say you like it by hitting the like button.  So after that, I accepted likes to be as good as comments.   I have said this many times before--usually with the same end result....a big argument, but good images get a lot of likes and/or comments.  So, I must be doing something wrong.  Lord knows these great images (your words) cause me to gasp in horror the first thing in the morning--then they improve to pretty decent images by dinner.   Or do they? 

Rodd

It strikes me that the problem with your images is that however many likes you get you will always want more and therefore you will never be happy with your image. Over the months you have made many comments about the likes you get (or don’t get) and threatened to leave the forum at one stage as people weren’t giving you the approval you were looking for through your images. Maybe  its time to determine what number of likes would satisfy your need for praise from others and once you have made changes to the image to achieve that number you can move on to your next target. Hope these thoughts help you come to terms with this as the number of likes appears to be something you spend a lot of time worrying about.

[Laurin Dave]

Hi Rodd

I like them both a lot but with a slight preference for the bottom one, it looks more natural (whatever that means) to me..  Perhaps combine the two sets of data for an even better one.  

Dave

Edited September 25, 2019 by Laurin Dave

[Gina]

I haven't looked at the full images but I like the top image better even if it has been processed almost to death.  I don't know which was taken with which camera and I would like to know but I think the differences are more in the processing than the camera.  At least that's the impression I get.  Both are superb images.

I too think you place too much emphasis on Likes - the important thing is what you like best.  Do it for yourself rather than others.  OTOH I know we all like to get lots of Likes!

[Rob Sellent]

@Rodd I apologise if I don't visit the imaging section that much - do imagers check out the sketchers section etc? - but I just wanted to say I find your photography outstanding and a joy to see. The two images supplied in this thread are absolutely gorgeous

[wesdon1]

10 hours ago, Jkulin said:

For me this one is far better Rod, less noise, less magenta and a cleaner image. I like it a lot.

Absolutely stunning image! Amazing work sir!

[vlaiv]

Hint for everyone wishing to know camera used for each image:

Both images were taken at same focal length but different pixel scale (one is more "close in" than the other, and other has better SNR for same integration time - "resolution at aperture" in works), none was binned.

Cameras in question have different pixel size ....

[glowingturnip]

for me I'd say the first, but only presented in that kind of image-scale, it definitely starts suffering at full res.  I like the detail in the clouds round the bubble that don't usually get brought out much, and the dark 'hollowness' of the bubble itself.

The second is the superior shot on close examination, but for me it is definitely too soft.  Did you deconvolute ?

[vlaiv]

There seems to be prevalent trend in comments here if I'm not mistaken?

People love first image at screen size because it provides more depth and sharpness. People also love second image on 1:1 inspection.

Ideally you want the combination of the two in your final rendition (not images but things that people prefer). Second image feels a bit soft because it is oversampled, at 1000mm, 3.8um pixel size will give resolution of 0.78"/px.

At 5.4um pixel size and 1000mm focal length - you will be sampling at 1.11"/px - this is closer to optimum sampling rate for your conditions (that I suspect will be order of 1.2-1.3"/px with 130mm aperture and good mount under average seeing in NB).

Btw, SNR ratio between these two resolutions is about x1.42, so things that are very low SNR in one image let's say SNR of 3.5 (barely distinguished from the noise) will have SNR of 5 (perfectly acceptable to be included in the image as legitimate signal that will be fairly smooth with some denoising).

@Rodd

If you happen to have all the data from the first image and all the data from the second image (meaning lights and calibration frames or at least calibrated lights for each channel) - maybe we could make "master image" by combining all the data at the same resolution - that being 1.11"/px?

We could do a little "collaboration" perhaps? I have fractional binning algorithm that works on calibrated subs rather than on final result (I think that it will be better that way), that actually does not produce "binned" subs, but splits subs in such way that makes more of them at target resolution.

We could either make all subs be sampled at 1.11"/px if you have all the data or maybe target 1.2-1.3"/px if you have the data for second image only, and see if you can process such stack to have features of both images - sharpness and depth at screen size and detail and sharpness (as opposed to softness) at 1:1 zoom?

 

[glowingturnip]

14 hours ago, Rodd said:

I have had some time to think about it and I can sum it up pretty simply....If my images are so good, why don't they get more likes and/or comments?  I can only assume it is because they are lacking in some way--hence my intense scrutiny.   Likes have me completely confused.   Great images tend to get many likes.  In general, the better the image, the more likes.  But I seem to buck this pattern.  Some of my best images (yes there are some decent ones) get what seems to me to be a low number of likes.  So, to answer your original question....I actually look at the images (rather intensely, probably more akin to scrutinizing them on many levels) in efforts to make improvements that will be recognized by those that do not feel the image is much better than average--hence the limited number of likes.  I learned in this way.  When I started out my images were clubbed pretty hard and I listened and tried to improve based on tips from the masters.  As I improved, or corrected a fault--I would get likes.  I would see great images that got many likes and tried to emulate them.  And I improved.  I once complained that I received few comments, and someone said, its easier to say you like it by hitting the like button.  So after that, I accepted likes to be as good as comments.   I have said this many times before--usually with the same end result....a big argument, but good images get a lot of likes and/or comments.  So, I must be doing something wrong.  Lord knows these great images (your words) cause me to gasp in horror the first thing in the morning--then they improve to pretty decent images by dinner.   Or do they? 

Rodd

ahem, just read the rest of the thread now, I missed the philosophical discussion !

This is without doubt a great forum, with a lot of great people on here, but it is easy for images to be missed.  I myself tend to dip in and out, and usually don't go past the first page of images when I do.  If other images are getting discussion going on, then off you scroll off the bottom  😞 .  Maybe some kind of weekly/monthly gallery of all images submitted to the site would be the way to go, so stuff doesn't get lost.

Astrobin I've got no time for - you have to pay to be on it and it's clearly cliquey.  Instagram they'll like anything, might as well post up pictures of my breakfast.  My secret is Reddit - there's an astrophotography subreddit on there that is mostly read by astro-interested lay people rather than detail-obsessed nerds like us, and the feedback you get there is much more useful - I've had 1500+ likes on some of my best images, but on other images of mine that I've thought technically good but not quite as photographically aesthetic as others, can find they languish in the 200's, then again, high scores on not particularly great captures but nice photos - I find that to be much more useful feedback than say 9 passing likes on a post on here that gets buried on page 2.   Go on, give it a go, post up one of your images per day on Reddit and see what happens - I'll be watching  🙂

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, PhotoGav said:

I prefer the second image. It is not as ‘spikey’ as the first, which, to me, appears over sharpened and over noise reductioned (if that’s a word!?!). The second has good detail and is more naturally soft looking. The stars are tighter in the second one too. I’m intrigued to know which image was with which camera...

As for likes - if that’s what you are after, post on Instagram or Facebook!! This forum is all about sharing knowledge and helping each other to get the most out of this most excellent pursuit (note I didn’t say hobby, I think most of us are way beyond hobbyist with our dedication!). Keep it up Rodd, always enjoy your images and posts.

Finally, on a personal preference note, I would love to see redder H alpha areas rather than the false orangey colour. As I say, that’s just what I like!

Thanks Gav.  I agree about comments vs likes. Always preferred them personally myself   Then someone explained that it was easier to hit the like button than come up with a comment that hadn’t been stated. I like both!   Regarding the red instead of gold in the Hubble palette-I have tried that. It’s quite easy to do really. But, ironically, it never went over well with the viewers!  Just kidding, I just prefer sticking with the traditional HP.  Though one of the reasons I want to do more LRGB is for the natural palette of red.  I find BB much more difficult than NB though. 

Rodd

[Rodd]

15 hours ago, alexbb said:

I prefer the second image, clearly, but both are very nice!

There are a few things I'd do to the second image.
At deconvolution, I'd tame down the highlights by increasing the deringing global bright. Maybe I would apply the deconvolution only to brighter areas.
The other thing would be to sharpen the final image with some MLT.
And maybe, just maybe, run some more aggressive ACDNR on chrominance.

I like especially that the stars have no artifacts, a thing I fail to achieve many times mainly because I get tired/bored to edit an image for so long.

Thanks-Alex...all good points, which I did..just not enough I guess.  I do struggle with color noise.  I agree about the deconvolution--but I am pretty careful about where its applied and I run through many attempts at varying settings using a preview.  It doesn't take much to step off the path though.  I definitely will increase global bright...that's the key I think.  Thanks you

Rodd