PixInsight Starnet

[Endolf]

I thought I'd have a quick play with the latest pixinsight with starnet plugin to see what would happen. These are all just taking my final jpg images and applying the processes. I *think* the better approach will be to remove the stars after the early stretching is done, then do the rest of the processing and then add the stars back in right at the end.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Endolf
Formatting

[Kinch]

11 minutes ago, Endolf said:

I thought I'd have a quick play with the latest pixinsight with starnet plugin to see what would happen

I realise that you said you were just having a play with StarNet......but I have to admit to detesting finished images with the stars removed. To me it just 'smells' of the imager not being able to process all the data and taking an easy way out to make a colourful image. ....and being able to hide that he/she cannot handle the stars in the image.

(I am not saying that here....don't get me wrong on that).

I would however be interested in other people's opinions on starless images.....are they acceptable in general? 

[Endolf]

I'm not sure I'd ever want starless as a final image, I think it makes for an interesting exercise, and I think that removing the stars, processing the nebula (or other target) and then adding the stars back in later is not really much different to creating a star mask and processing the image around the stars. Another tool in the box rather than a magic bullet.

As for my images, I've only been doing this since February this year and I'm still on a trial for PixInsight, so I know full well that I've a lot to learn on processing

[Adreneline]

28 minutes ago, Kinch said:

I would however be interested in other people's opinions on starless images.

Well I feel I am one of the few who quite likes a starless image. I've done lots but rarely if ever post them as I perceive there is a view they are not kosha.

My personal view is that removing stars can often reveal structure and form in a nebula that can go unnoticed in a star filled image, whether the stars are correctly processed or not. I feel that if the object of the exercise is to image a nebula then what is wrong with removing the stars in order to better perceive the nebula itself? The vast majority of the stars in an image have nothing to do with the nebula - they just happen to be in the field of view.

I know I am in the minority and I am quite happy to keep my starless images on my Apple TV screen saver for my own personal enjoyment just as I am my star filled images.

Adrian

P.S. Perhaps there should be a "Starless Images" topic! That way those who are offended by the lack of stars don't need to look  

Edited August 26, 2020 by Adreneline
Addition

[jiberjaber]

I think it depends on what you are trying to present in the image.  Starless certainly has a place in the processing, it enables working on parts of the image without impacting the stars, or just working on the stars themselves.

Sometimes it's better to "lower the volume" on the stars, using Starnet to do that and perhaps bring the stars back in at a lower intensity allows the intended focus of the image to be more present.

Sometimes seeing the target without stars allows more of the detail to be seen by others who may not know it's there in the first place.

Starnet has a place in the workflow, if people want to chose a different workflow, perhaps harder for some but easier for them, then crack on, surely it's the output that matters at the end of the process, not necessarily the journey for some? 

A lot of these images are 'artistic' in presentation anyway, so there will always be different views on interpretations of final product.  👍

[MartinB]

I love looking at starless nebulosity.  Everyone has their personal preference and there is certainly  no right or wrong, as is also the case with saturation and NB colour palettes.  I like to have stars in my nebula images but quite heavily attenuated and Starnet is just the job for this.  It works much better than any techniques I have used previously.