2-Panel Veil Nebula mosaic from @Roboscopes - is this OK?

[old_eyes]

2-panel mosaic of the Veil nebula complex. Data takes on Pier 14 @Roboscopes in Spain (Reduced Tak FSQ106, ASI 2600 MM Pro, unguided Paramount MX). 3.6 hrs Ha and 5.8 hrs O3 in 240 sec subs.

I may have pushed the nebula too far and reduced the stars too much. Interested in your opinions.

[simmo39]

Looks good to me.

[tomato]

Beautifully framed, I would agree it looks slightly over stretched with the brightest parts of the nebula a bit blown out. In my opinion the dense star fields can detract from the nebula so some star reduction is beneficial, how much is down to personal preference, yours look OK to me.

[old_eyes]

6 minutes ago, tomato said:

Beautifully framed, I would agree it looks slightly over stretched with the brightest parts of the nebula a bit blown out. In my opinion the dense star fields can detract from the nebula so some star reduction is beneficial, how much is down to personal preference, yours look OK to me.

Yes, that was my fear. I think I will have another go and try to produce a softer image. I find the shift in what an image looks like as you switch from .xisf to .jpg for posting hard to predict (at least for me, I am always being taken by surprise!).

[old_eyes]

1 hour ago, old_eyes said:

Yes, that was my fear. I think I will have another go and try to produce a softer image. I find the shift in what an image looks like as you switch from .xisf to .jpg for posting hard to predict (at least for me, I am always being taken by surprise!).

New version. A bit softer. I like this better.

[tomato]

Yes, I prefer the second one, more structure is now visible in the nebulosity.

That’s an interesting comment you make about changes due to file format. I must admit that despite PI’s dire warnings I don’t use their file format, just fits, tiff and jpg.

[old_eyes]

18 hours ago, tomato said:

Yes, I prefer the second one, more structure is now visible in the nebulosity.

That’s an interesting comment you make about changes due to file format. I must admit that despite PI’s dire warnings I don’t use their file format, just fits, tiff and jpg.

I find the fantastic range of the .xisf format give me greatest flexibility when processing (particularly in the early stages). The only issue is that when you need to reduce the bit depth of the image for presentation, there are always going to be some compromises as you compress the image. Maybe it is my lack of understanding of how the process works, but I am sometimes taken by surprise by the difference between how the image looks in pixinsight and how it appears from a .jpg in a standard image handling programme.

[tomato]

Yes, I'm assuming this is a subjective thing, but images presented in PI always seem to look 'cleaner' to me than when viewing the same file in Affinity Photo or Astro Pixel Processor.