Uncertain of the Rules

[AusGuy]

Your guidance please. Not having posted here before and recognizing that this is an EAA forum, I'm uncertain as to what is appropriate to display. Below is the immediate result of saving a SharpCap livestack of 4 x 60 second exposures of the Rosette Nebula incorporating flat and dark frame adjustments. Below that is the same image after some enhancement using Photoshop. My guess is that the second version is not acceptable here but I'd like to confirm that before posting any more images.

Vixen R200SS. SW AZ-EQ6. ZWO ASI294MC Pro. Baader MPCC, Bortle 4.5 No guiding.

Thanks.

[RobertI]

Welcome to SGL! 🙂 Nice images. I think in theory there shouldn’t be any post processing involved in EEVA and to be honest I have found that the live software available now is so good that postprocessing doesn’t actually improve the image very much! I don’t think people will mind if you post a post-processed image along with your live  captured image. I’m sure the mods will correct me if I’m wrong. For your information there is another forum for images taken with EQ mounts at 30 seconds or less - if your set up qualifies you might want to post some of your post processed images in there. Or even in the normal imaging section, but we still want to see your live captures here in EEVA. 😁

Edited December 11, 2020 by RobertI

[AKB]

I rather like this type of comparison, as long as it’s clear what we’re looking at, and, indeed as @RobertI says, the difference is often less than you might think.

It would surely be churlish to have saved your data from an EEVA session and then *not* choose to revisit it with a processing tweak during those (interminable) cloudy nights.  If it brings out a fine detail of astronomical interest, then so much the better, IMHO.

Tony

 

PS: that looks rather good for 4 x 60s on the Rosette.

Edited December 11, 2020 by AKB

[Martin Meredith]

I agree with all of the above, and I actually vastly prefer the unprocessed version 🙂

Martin

[AKB]

9 minutes ago, Martin Meredith said:

 I actually vastly prefer the unprocessed version

There’s something rather appealing about an image which draws you in to look at the detail more closely.  I suppose it’s more like the observing experience.

[Marvin Jenkins]

What a great image so much from so few images. I like both of them but will compartmentalise them in my mind as different work product if that makes sense.

M

[AusGuy]

Thank you for your replies and welcoming encouragement Robert, Tony, Martin and Marvin. They are much appreciated.

I asked the question because I do not want to tread on any toes with any future postings by falling foul of site rules whether they be explicit or even just implied.

I must apologize for the seriously over-processed second image that I posted but I wanted to emphasize by exaggeration the difference in appearance between the two images. And it seems that that was to the good because, extrapolating from your comments, I understand that post-acquisition enhancement is not frowned on provided that it is explicitly declared. That being so perhaps it is sufficient to post single images that have been slightly “improved”, for example by removing any satellite streaks and slightly stretching using levels or curves to improve contrast? The aim being to enhance detail without destroying the captured on-screen appearance.

David

[Sunshine]

Love the image, first is my fav, having said that would someone please explain why the apprehension about posting processed images? doesn’t everyone process their images? I’m confused.

[Mike JW]

Hi 'AusGuy', It is decent of you to inquire as to the 'rules' - I prefer the idea of shared 'approach/enthusiasm'. Absolutely prefer the first image.

To me EEVA is not about imaging or getting an image, (yet of course it is imaging). EEVA is about using digital means to "observe" and in observing to see more and to be fired up to read up about the object. Then to present this on a forum such as this. 

Please do not be offended by the next comment(s), What is the point of posting yet another image of  the Rosette (apart from sharing what you have achieved and how you did it - actually I am most impressed). If the post was accompanied by some interesting facts re the object, (even if they are well known) and/or details that you had noticed for the first time, reference to a research paper.....then the image with its comments re the object attains much greater value and purpose. It inspires others not only to view the object but to learn about it, find out more - that is observing/astronomy. So much of the time an image is posted on various forums and yes it shows amazing detail but what do I learn from it? - often nothing other than the processing technique. Several times in this particular forum, an 'observation' has been posted with some comments/thoughts/observations which has then lead others to take a look to tease out more detail using a different scope and more observations/references to articles - much fun, fascination and knowledge gain.

Looking at your first image - some very interesting yellow stars (one looks as if it is a double - just checked it is H2 37 - near the centre of the fov  - components A and B are both mag 9 and separated by about 6 arc seconds - I have observed this visually so great to see it in colour. The orangey star just on the edge on the right - if I have made the correct identification (not sure I have) is a near neighbour to us - 19 lyrs away. In fact the more I look at this wonderful shot there is so much to see and comment on.

Thanks for posting and I look forward to your next post,

Mike

[Mr Spock]

I much prefer the first image; it looks more natural. The second image is way over processed for me - but that's just a personal opinion.

As for what you can post. SGL likes to encourage participation from everyone. Please feel free to post whatever you like. If anyone doesn't like your post, or feels like their toes are being stepped on, they have the option to scroll past 

[RobertI]

2 hours ago, Sunshine said:

Love the image, first is my fav, having said that would someone please explain why the apprehension about posting processed images? doesn’t everyone process their images? I’m confused.

It's a fair question! My understanding is that EEVA (previously called Video Astronomy) began when people started using low light CCTV cameras for astronomy to get real time views of DSOs on a monitor. There was no ability to process images as such. This technique allowed people to observe in light polluted skies and was also great for outreach. Then people started using 'normal' astro cameras to take a series of short exposures , 'live stack' them and process immediately. That's when the arguments started to rage. What is 'live'? Is a 30 second image 'live'? What if you processed the image the next day - is that 'observing'? On Cloudy Nights there have been very heated debates over the years and as a result they have very strict rules. We seem to be much more relaxed here on SGL and long may it continue!

EEVA often comprises a super-simple setup comprising a modest camera, a USB cable and a monitor or laptop with suitable real-time software - no guiding, no high end cameras/scopes, sometimes just altaz mounts, often just mono, often plenty of noise/coma/trailing. Sometimes the images are not pretty or perfect (the complete opposite of 'astro-photgraphy') but at least you have seen them and you have the benefit of being able to share what you saw with others. The fantastic new cameras and live software (eg: @Martin Meredith 's Jocular) offer so much more and are great for undertaking observing projects, analysis, research, etc. I'm sure EEVA will continue to evolve apace! 💪

[RobertI]

23 hours ago, AusGuy said:

Your guidance please. Not having posted here before and recognizing that this is an EAA forum, I'm uncertain as to what is appropriate to display. Below is the immediate result of saving a SharpCap livestack of 4 x 60 second exposures of the Rosette Nebula incorporating flat and dark frame adjustments. Below that is the same image after some enhancement using Photoshop. My guess is that the second version is not acceptable here but I'd like to confirm that before posting any more images.

Vixen R200SS. SW AZ-EQ6. ZWO ASI294MC Pro. Baader MPCC, Bortle 4.5 No guiding.

Thanks

Just to add to the comments above, now I can see your images on my large monitor, yes the first one is more natural. I prefer to keep the sky background a dark grey than completely black - it looks more like the view through the eyepiece where the view is rarely black and also helps retain the 'smoothness' in the image a reduce the noise.