Lesson learned

[Rodd]

Its a lesson I have learned a dozen times.  Why do I have to keep learning it?  Because I, like many, want to squeeze as much out of the data as possible--I want the dust lanes to be darker and sharper, the depth to be deeper, the sharpness to be scapelesque.  Alas--it usually means I push the data past the point that it can handle, and  I spend weeks/months/even years trying to massage the data into my vision.  It becomes a perpetual pebble in my shoe.  Here is my latest example:

Sh2-132 captured with C11 Edge 0.7x reducer, AOG and ASI 1600.  About 34 hours of data (the OIII and some Ha were captured with the TOA 130).

The first image is the image I saw fit to call the final one.  The second image is not pushed as far.  I think it is a better image as far as processing.  It seems more balanced.  Let me know if you think I am crazy.  That has been claimed at least as often as me having to relearn this elusive lesson!  Believe me, I have tried for many hours to make the second image a bit brighter and have a bit more red, like the first image.  I could not succeed.  So, seems that the second image is what is appropriate for this data, even though I don't want it to be so.  perhaps THAT is the tougher lesson to learn!!

[Stuf1978]

Both are very nice, personally I prefer the first as I feel it's brighter and has a bit more punch to it.  Having said that, it's always a fine line between having a nicely balanced image and pushing the data slightly too far. You certainly haven't pushed the data too far in this instance, admiral work  

[Rodd]

22 minutes ago, Stuf1978 said:

Both are very nice, personally I prefer the first as I feel it's brighter and has a bit more punch to it.  Having said that, it's always a fine line between having a nicely balanced image and pushing the data slightly too far. You certainly haven't pushed the data too far in this instance, admiral work  

Thanks, Stuf.  I agree the first looks better upon first seeing if. But if you view in full resolution mode there are fewer artifacts in the second. It’s cleaner without the use of more noise suppression.  The stars are better.  I am still trying to turn the second image into the first. I will post if successful 

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Stuf1978 said:

Both are very nice, personally I prefer the first as I feel it's brighter and has a bit more punch to it.  Having said that, it's always a fine line between having a nicely balanced image and pushing the data slightly too far. You certainly haven't pushed the data too far in this instance, admiral work  

Ok. I originally had this ad the second image but I dialed back even further. Maybe this one is better. It s big brighter 

[Rodd]

Or maybe this 

[The Lazy Astronomer]

I think we suffer from the same affliction, Rodd! I can't count the number of times I've messed up an image trying to get more of particular element to come forwards in it... Not that I've ever seen a bad end result from you though, regardless of what you think of your own work (we are all our own worst critics).

The first image does present better initially, but as you say, at full resolution, the second one has the edge, particularly the stars. I think my favourite is the top one of the original v2 you posted above (the one I 'liked') - the stars look very nice in that one, and I think the dark nebula looks better as well. That said though, I do very much like the extra goldish red of the top image in the first post... This processing lark's tricky, ain't it? 😁

Question: how do you get sooo much integration time? Do you pool data over several years, or do you have an army of scopes shooting away all night long? 

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

I think we suffer from the same affliction, Rodd! I can't count the number of times I've messed up an image trying to get more of particular element to come forwards in it... Not that I've ever seen a bad end result from you though, regardless of what you think of your own work (we are all our own worst critics).

The first image does present better initially, but as you say, at full resolution, the second one has the edge, particularly the stars. I think my favourite is the top one of the original v2 you posted above (the one I 'liked') - the stars look very nice in that one, and I think the dark nebula looks better as well. That said though, I do very much like the extra goldish red of the top image in the first post... This processing lark's tricky, ain't it? 😁

Question: how do you get sooo much integration time? Do you pool data over several years, or do you have an army of scopes shooting away all night long? 

Tricky indeed! Thanks for your kind words.  I tend to need slog if data due to my sky. So I will shoot gif many days on a target.  4-5 full nights.   That translates to a month, lately.  I have long since learned that I cannot produce a decent image unless I have 20 hours of more. Sometimes a bit less, depending on target and conditions.  So, I guess I have learned to be patient and to shoot whenever I can.   I only use one scope at a time.  Sometimes I combine data from 2 scopes, but usually as a last resort.  It can be fun.  I usually have s FOV and framing issue though. I did it here just to see how it would come out (OIII Is from TOA, some Ha as well in some versions).   The image scales and FOV are similar. I am still debating whether I should collect OIII with the C11

 

[simmo39]

As said above, the second image to my poor eyes has the edge for me but I would be proud of any of the images you have done.

[PeterCPC]

I prefer the second image. It's a job to know when to stop - I know this all too well.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, simmo39 said:

As said above, the second image to my poor eyes has the edge for me but I would be proud of any of the images you have done.

Thanks for looking. 

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, PeterCPC said:

I prefer the second image. It's a job to know when to stop - I know this all too well.

Thanks Peter. A Job I usually fail at!  I appreciate your input