Ghost

[Rodd]

I don't think there are more disparate examples of before and after for one image.  The Ghost Nebula is one of the images that I could not process decently at all--I blamed it on exposure time, my sky, LP, guiding, and, of course, rudimentary processing skills.  After 5 years, only one variable has changed for this data set.  SWtill not satisfied.  I am looking forward to shooting this target again.

TOA 130 and STT 8300.  LRGB about 18.5 hours

New

 

Old

Edited February 5, 2023 by Rodd

[ollypenrice]

This is such a faint, dark object that I don't envy you the task of prizing it out from the light pollution. You've done it, though. Good going.

Olly

[Rodd]

7 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

This is such a faint, dark object that I don't envy you the task of prizing it out from the light pollution. You've done it, though. Good going.

Olly

Thanks Olly.  The computer screen I am on now is quite dark; the image looks way to dark-plus the room is fairly bright.  But on my processing screen it looks just about right.  This makes it tricky to decide how much stretch is too much and how close to clipping is the background. That is one of the more frustrating aspects of this venture - knowing how the image really looks.  With print, it's much easier; one is left with only reflected light as a variable (once its printed).  With digital images, it is much more varied, as every screen is different.  I hop.e it looks to you as it does on my processing screen :)!

[Maximidius]

The new version is most certainly a huge improvement over the original. It's an absolutely cracking image, Rodd. 

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, Maximidius said:

The new version is most certainly a huge improvement over the original. It's an absolutely cracking image, Rodd. 

Thanks Max.