Data Set for Northern Friends

[gorann]

Thanks for the entertainment for us northerners Rodd! Great data.

Your version looks so good that I did not want to say I would try to have a go at the data until I could see that my version was not too inferior. So here it is, mainly done in PS, but some HDRM and SCNRgreen done in PI. I am at least rather pleased with the stars. I also used Olly's @ollypenrice method of adding a few % of an Equalize layer in PS to get more dust out.

Cheers

Göran

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by gorann

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, gorann said:

So here it is,

Very nice.  I like how the blue spills over the edge of the central region into the surrounding nebula.  Dust looks great.  I found the dust particularity vexing--the reason for the darkness.  I think you have done well!

[gorann]

28 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Very nice.  I like how the blue spills over the edge of the central region into the surrounding nebula.  Dust looks great.  I found the dust particularity vexing--the reason for the darkness.  I think you have done well!

Thanks for the approval Rodd! I like the light dustiness that could be brought out from your data. My old DSLR data on the Iris was more heavy as I remeber it. I should revisit it one night.

[gorann]

PS. I am impresed by the level of detail you have for the core of the nebula - not far off that of the Liverpool Telescope that I once processed (only 24 minutes but with a 2 meter RC scope):

https://www.astrobin.com/384176/F/

[wimvb]

After a week of grading papers and a STEM competition, I finally got the time to complete this image. I think I kept it close to your interpretation, Rodd. Not intentionally. I wanted the reflection nebula to be the attention grabber.

I reduced the smaller stars a little, but not too much. After all, it's part of the Milky Way.

Edited May 15, 2020 by wimvb

[Rodd]

5 minutes ago, wimvb said:

Not intentionally

That is good to kmow--it means I am not too far off the mark.  Your image is cleaner than mine--and I am not really talking about noise per say.  It looks more polished.  I think part of that is I lifted the dust a bit beyond what the data can handle due to noise.  I should have left it darker, I guess.  Oh well, I guess I have my assignment for the week!I   I think if you dimmed the core just a bit, its a bullseye.

[wimvb]

3 minutes ago, Rodd said:

That is good to kmow--it means I am not too far off the mark.  Your image is cleaner than mine--and I am not really talking about noise per say.  It looks more polished.  I think part of that is I lifted the dust a bit beyond what the data can handle due to noise.  I should have left it darker, I guess.  Oh well, I guess I have my assignment for the week!I   I think if you dimmed the core just a bit, its a bullseye.

You probably went a little harder on the HDRMT. I used a toned down lightness mask, with the white point dailed back to below 0.5. This keeps HDRMT under control.

[Rodd]

56 minutes ago, wimvb said:

You probably went a little harder on the HDRMT. I used a toned down lightness mask, with the white point dailed back to below 0.5. This keeps HDRMT under control.

I actually rarely use it.  I realized I never like the results.  I do every thing with range masks and curves.  I have gotten pretty good with various S curves, usually very shallow.  I only Use HDMRT as the first step in making a star mask for MT.  I have tried changing the number of layers.  Once in a while I will find it effective in bright areas like the edge of the Great Wall, or a tiny portion of the elephants trunk, or galaxies.  But usually Only very small areas with a good range mask. In this case, I did not like the results. 

[gorann]

Nice version Wim! @wimvb. Mine is a bit lighter and I think the dust could be made to look even more light, like this IOTD by Peter Shah https://www.astrobin.com/374668/ or Adam Bloch's image (https://www.adamblockphotos.com/ngc-7023-widefield.html).

Do you think the data may not support it and that the brown structures I have in the dust of my version is mainly noise? Maybe I pushed the dustiness a bit too far but it does not look like noise to me, but I should have another look at it.

[wimvb]

To me, this image isn't about getting the dust to stand out as much as possible, or trying to make it look like mainstream images from well known astrophotographers. When I see this object, I see a bright light through a tunnel of dark, looming dust. There should definitely be a separation between that dust and the background, but further than that, this object lends itself very well to more artistic interpretations. I'm just not there yet.

I like the interpretations from Block and Göran, but at the same time I want to take this data in a different direction. It can be an example of the freedom we astrophotographers have in processing.

[gorann]

4 minutes ago, wimvb said:

To me, this image isn't about getting the dust to stand out as much as possible, or trying to make it look like mainstream images from well known astrophotographers. When I see this object, I see a bright light through a tunnel of dark, looming dust. There should definitely be a separation between that dust and the background, but further than that, this object lends itself very well to more artistic interpretations. I'm just not there yet.

I like the interpretations from Block and Göran, but at the same time I want to take this data in a different direction. It can be an example of the freedom we astrophotographers have in processing.

Exactly! I also wanted to do something that deviated a bit from Rodd's interpretation - I had actually not seen Block's version until this morning when I surfed for other Irises out there and it is quite striking how many ways it has been presented.

[Rodd]

7 hours ago, gorann said:

ike this IOTD by Peter Shah https://www.astrobin.com/374668/ or Adam Bloch's image (https://www.adamblockphotos.com/ngc-7023-widefield.html).

I have a bit of trouble with wide field versions of this target that show almost no definition in the core.  To me, the center is the center of attention and should not be washed in glare.  I realize they are wide filed shots that are highlighting the dusty background....but the images just look unfinished.  Also, I think they have pushed the data farther than it can go--they are are just too bright IMO.  My goal with this image was the core.  I also wanted to get as much out of the dust as I could, and went a bit over the line.  I had many versions that were darker, like Wims, but noted a little more definition in the dust.  I realize now I should have left well enough alone.  i guess I can go back and dim things a bit.  I'll give it a go and see if it works

[gorann]

Like all astroimages I do not think there is an ultimate version - I wish they could be posted with a slider so that the image can be adjusted according to personal taste at the moment😉

[Rodd]

28 minutes ago, gorann said:

Like all astroimages I do not think there is an ultimate version - I wish they could be posted with a slider so that the image can be adjusted according to personal taste at the moment😉

Still--the core deserves more color and detail IMO--For me, its like imaging Saturn without the rings, or M13 without the propeller.  

[wimvb]

56 minutes ago, gorann said:

wish they could be posted with a slider so that the image can be adjusted according to personal taste at the moment😉

Isn't that what Rodd did? You just have to provide your own set of sliders. And the "moment", well time is relative anyway. 😁