IC434 - HOS and SHO

[Adreneline]

This is a seriously difficult target to process and even after hours of processing I'm not that happy with the end result but I thought I would share it anyway.

This is 30 x 180s Ha, 25 x 180s OIII and 12 x 180s of SII, pre-processed in APP, processed in PI and starless and star images blended in Affinity.

HOS:

SHO:

My preference is with SHO as I think it reveals more structure.

Thanks for looking.

Adrian

 

[callisto]

SHO deffo 

 

Mark

[vlaiv]

I like SHO better as well, but to my eye, technique where starless version is processed separately and then stars put back in - seems too artificial. I guess that is because some of the stars are lost.

I think it is down to my expectations - brain is trained to see much more stars on that level of stretch than can be seen in the image. I don't mind stars being tight - it's just that there are so few of them.

I don't mind starless version without stars - just showing nebulosity. It his this "middle ground" that seems confusing.

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by vlaiv

[ollypenrice]

The problem with the HOS, for me, is that it replicates to some extent a broadband colour image but without the blue reflection nebulosity. By getting right away from that, the SHO lets the image become its real self and show what it has to give. We see wonderful rhythmic sweeps in the gas and dust. Superb. If it were mine I'd want to soften those hard edged stars, which have a slightly spikey, intrusive look. A dead easy fix in a program with levels. Just blur a bottom layer and erase the right radius from the top layer.

Olly

[Adreneline]

Thanks @vlaiv and @ollypenrice for your comments and advice.

I used the method you showed me Olly to put the stars back but maybe I didn't apply the right curve shape or maybe the it's the way the starless version proved so difficult to control.

I agree totally about the HOS version - it's not very 'pretty' and certainly not very pleasing in terms of revealing detail.

I will have another go with the methodology you have described and see if I can improve those hard-edged looking stars; they do not look natural and as Vlad has pointed out some of them seem to have gone missing!

Thanks again for your comments and advice - it's very much appreciated.

Adrian

[Adreneline]

Well there are now a few more stars @vlaivbut not sure they look any less spikey @ollypenrice.

Adrian

[Stub Mandrel]

I prefer the SHO version.

You have got very deep with that nebulosity.

Personally I also prefer stars to have a gentler fade toward the centre, even if this bloats them a bit. In RGB they can look over-processed, like boiled sweets, if treated too harshly, but not as extreme in these images.

I'm found that these targets look best in HSO, strong Sii regions showing up as gold and the Ha ranging from deep red to orange depending on how much Sii is present.

The O filter passes enough blue for strong reflection nebulas to have some presence.

I use 7nm filters, narrower ones may give different outcomes.

[Stub Mandrel]

I prefer the SHO version.

You have got very deep with that nebulosity.

Personally I also prefer stars to have a gentler fade toward the centre, even if this bloats them a bit. In RGB they can look over-processed, like boiled sweets, if treated too harshly, but not as extreme in these images.

I'm found that these targets look best in HSO, strong Sii regions showing up as gold and the Ha ranging from deep red to orange depending on how much Sii is present.

The O filter passes enough blue for strong reflection nebulas to have some presence.

I use 7nm filters, narrower ones may give different outcomes.

[Adreneline]

3 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I'm found that these targets look best in HSO

Thanks Neil - I'll give it a go.

I need to get back into RGB imaging now we've moved to a darker area - it was a waste of time at the previous location.

Adrian