Jump to content

 

1825338873_SNRPN2021banner.jpg.68bf12c7791f26559c66cf7bce79fe3d.jpg

 

processing challenge


neil phillips
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thought this might be interesting, to see what you guys tinker up like. Im posting up a raw stack wavelets applied RGB align done (may need tweaking duiring processing ) RGB balance all right in the middle ( again may need tweaking ) i raise the blue a little. other than that nothing else has been done, notice the bright background shooting in daylight some kind of darkening is required, i dont use contrast for this i hate it, this is a 150% resize you can either leave it full size or drop no lower than 100% im usually at about 125% a few suggestions i hate burnout on the white clouds i hate grain noise, and artifacts, so think a little along those lines. as a example ill post 1 smoother post processing done by me, and 1 more sharpened. Hope someone takes a interest, im interested in what others could do, if lots try this i cant reply to everyone but ill mention if i like something, A chance for begginers ( or more advanced ) to play with a large raw jupiter. Hope you find the idea interesting. ive uploaded a png just copy and paste convert back to tiff if you want for processing june the 1st capture

Neil

4753725164_04f54bd8ab_o.png

smooth processing example

125%

4753645476_9b03652a36_o.png

sharper processing example

4753651804_8e67c9a330_o.png

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice Brian, somewhat different to mine, your colour looks better, the reason wavelets didnt help much is because i had already pushed them to a point just before noise kicks in so any more would basically produce the artificial look, i suspect thats what you saw, i cant be certain but looks like you have used a little contrast, ( correct me if im wrong ) though the result is pleasing too much contrast is something i dont like, i occassionaly use a little, did you adjust colour if so what ? i tend to saturate a little, something i may stop doing as often it causes colour casts doesnt it, i really need new software just free programs is all i got. Thanks for trying, i was interested to see what others take on processing this image could do, And i like it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Neil

Had a quick look at this. I had a look at the channels and the main problem with this image is the poor quality of the blue. So, I removed the blue channel and just sharpened the red and green. I then put the blue back in and added the nice red channel as a luminance layer. Then I adjusted the levels to get the colour "right". As always, there is a fine line between introducing artefacts and sharpening enough so that nothing is left on the table.

Cheers

Nick

post-12860-133877459822_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow i must say im surprised by this Nick ( not surprised youve done so well ) But surprised the balance coulld look so different to mine

I clearly need to brush up on my processing technique, ( and possibly stop saturating the colour ) for a while i was seperating the channels the way you do and sharpeming seperately. But havent been trying that for some time.

I think after seeing this i might start thinking like that again. You say the blue was the problem ( it almost always is isnt it ) by not sharpening the blue im guessing you kept artifacts and or noise down to a minimum. Is this correct ? or if you could give your reasons on the problems the blue had and hence why not sharpening has benefited so much.

I Dont want to bog you down in questions Nick, but one last one i have ( never having done rgb work ) you say you used the red as a luminence what exactly did you do to make it a luminence, i always thought a luminence was basically a mono channel added to the RGB is that what you mean ? Many thanks for taking the trouble to have a go. And helping me progress my own processing. I do think the image you posted looks about as right as it can be, very impressed to say the least Thanks again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i cant be certain but looks like you have used a little contrast, ( correct me if im wrong ) though the result is pleasing too much contrast is something i dont like, i occassionaly use a little, did you adjust colour if so what ?

In PS Elements:

Auto white balance, followed by minor reduction of gamma in green & increase in red. Pulled saturation up 20%. Resized. Applied sharpening, "lens blur" mode, radius 2.0, strength 100% & followed with despeckle filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow i must say im surprised by this Nick ( not surprised youve done so well ) But surprised the balance coulld look so different to mine

I clearly need to brush up on my processing technique, ( and possibly stop saturating the colour ) for a while i was seperating the channels the way you do and sharpeming seperately. But havent been trying that for some time.

I think after seeing this i might start thinking like that again. You say the blue was the problem ( it almost always is isnt it ) by not sharpening the blue im guessing you kept artifacts and or noise down to a minimum. Is this correct ? or if you could give your reasons on the problems the blue had and hence why not sharpening has benefited so much.

I Dont want to bog you down in questions Nick, but one last one i have ( never having done rgb work ) you say you used the red as a luminence what exactly did you do to make it a luminence, i always thought a luminence was basically a mono channel added to the RGB is that what you mean ? Many thanks for taking the trouble to have a go. And helping me progress my own processing. I do think the image you posted looks about as right as it can be, very impressed to say the least Thanks again

Yes Neil, the blue channel had already got very noisy with the wavelet sharpening. I this were my image, I probably would have smoothed the blue channel out a bit as this can really drag the quality of an image down. To make a luminance is easy in photoshop: I just copied the red channel (and saved as grayscale)then added it as a layer to the RGB image and selected "luminosity" as the blending mode. I believe Paintshop Pro and the Gimp etc have similar functionality.

Cheers

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok that makes sense, thank you again Brian for taking a go and your further info it all helps, i need to get photo shop, And Nick thanks for the extra info, i dont have paintshop anymore, dont fully understand the gimp yet ( if ever ) but understanding what your both doing will help me know what areas to look into.

I want infact to Go the RGB way ( filter wheel ect ) but have to sell some stuff to afford a new camera flea 3 looks promising. Ill have to see how the sale goes. One last thing if i wanted to post your rework Nick is it ok to do so ? just manners to ask as its your input too, i will credit the processing to you if i do, If you rather i didnt no problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its never to late to join in cloudwatcher, While i think your processing isnt the norm, i actually find this quite interesting because untill you had processed in such a way as to highlight the dark charcoal grey material of the missing belt, i actually couldnt see it in my own images or Nicks or Brians , however after you have highlighted this, ive been looking harder, lo and behold, yes it is there a faint band, Thats interesting, because either it hasnt really completely gone, or yes your right this could be the begining of a revival. Im not sure which ? if anyone would like to discuss this.

Thanks for posting, very interesting observation that. Its actually more on the right than the left isnt it, ill have to look more closely at my captures that show more of this region i think stay tuned

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.