Am I overcooking this moon image?

[LaurenceT]

I'm having some difficulty in deciding on the sharpness etc. of my final moon after processing and I may be overcooking the final image, opinions appreciated.

 

 

[Swoop1]

Hi @LaurenceT. I can see what you mean by overcooking. 

It does look a little too pushed to me though I don't have enough knowledge of processing to say where you need to knock it back a little.

I suspect there is a cracking image in there so keep trying!

[Kon]

It has been pushed a bit too much, and the good thing is that you have noticed. You have an edge rind artifact around the edge of the moon and throughout the craters. The white balance seems to be a bit aggressive as the whites are washed off. Try a lot less wavelets. Less is more as it is usually mentioned.

You may want to put the stacked tiff here if you want others to have a go.

[LaurenceT]

23 minutes ago, Kon said:

It has been pushed a bit too much, and the good thing is that you have noticed. You have an edge rind artifact around the edge of the moon and throughout the craters. The white balance seems to be a bit aggressive as the whites are washed off. Try a lot less wavelets. Less is more as it is usually mentioned.

You may want to put the stacked tiff here if you want others to have a go.

Thanks for that. I found wavelets in Registax too aggressive but I was equally aggressive without realising it in my usual photo imaging software. This time I used Lightroom very carefully and then converted to mono with Nik Silver Efex.

[ollypenrice]

Never forget that Henri Cartier-Bresson said, 'Sharpness is a bourgeois concept!'    It's a quality seen more frequently in pictures than in reality, too. We are all tempted to over-do it.

I think it essential to test each each iteration of sharpening against the original by importing both into a program offering layers, so you can blink the sharpened version on and off, vary the opacity so you can have some, rather than all, of the sharpening and you can erase it entirely in parts where it is not a benefit.

Olly

[Kon]

1 hour ago, LaurenceT said:

Thanks for that. I found wavelets in Registax too aggressive but I was equally aggressive without realising it in my usual photo imaging software. This time I used Lightroom very carefully and then converted to mono with Nik Silver Efex.

 

I think that's much better but could be less. It seems that either seeing was not great or focus was maybe a tad off. The whites at the edges and the bottom are still blown off (it is either overexposed during capture or you have done auto white balance and it can give this effect or combination of both (in my past captures it was a combination of the lateral)). No need to convert to mono as then you can try up the saturation and have a nice mineral moon.

Edited January 19 by Kon

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The second is a lot better. I find Registax needs very gentle enhancement on the moon, and often prefer to use ImPPG.

[IDM]

You might want to consider trying Astrosurface as another free software package. I think it gives you greater control with both wavelet sharpening as well as other sharpening tools. I have used it mostly with my more recent Jupiter images and found it very useful.

Ian

[GasGiant]

16 minutes ago, IDM said:

You might want to consider trying Astrosurface as another free software package. I think it gives you greater control with both wavelet sharpening as well as other sharpening tools. I have used it mostly with my more recent Jupiter images and found it very useful.

Ian

Is this it ? Looks like its was made in the early 90s ?

My pc is saying its unsafe to download ?  

[IDM]

2 hours ago, GasGiant said:

Is this it ? Looks like its was made in the early 90s ?

My pc is saying its unsafe to download ?  

It’s a while since I downloaded it but yes I think that’s the site. The software doesn’t look like that when installed. I cannot recall warnings about safety but it was fine. I also know many people use it for planetary.

Ian

[bosun21]

12 hours ago, GasGiant said:

Is this it ? Looks like its was made in the early 90s ?

My pc is saying its unsafe to download ?  

My PC issued the warning as well but I just overode it and installed it anyway. It works great for the planets and moon. I think that Windows issues a warning if a particular piece of software hasn't reached a certain number of downloads. Well at least that's what it told me.

Edited January 21 by bosun21

[GasGiant]

Ok guys, ill give it w whirl. Thank you.