Detail or natural ?

[neil phillips]

I know my post generated a lot of interest, but personally i wasnt really happy with the naturalness of the image. So i took the raw stacked image and gently enhanced it, cant remember if the shot had a Red Lum in it or not on this one, but i dont think it did. Anyway less detail can be seen for sure but personally i prefer it. As i think it looks more real less contrived, Less like a digital image and more like a planet. See if you agree some may not

[frewi808]

Very nice Image Neil, I can see the coffee bean were the two storms merge.

[johnh]

Softer images do look more natural but I like the detail, this image though is still great but small oval storms and the brown beads don't stand out as well which I like. The equatorial detail is softer which I actually prefer in this one. The blues are less here which is what you see through the eyepiece but I prefer the better colours of the original image myself. You do have a point but I suppose its down to personal taste in the end.

John.

[atharh]

I really like it as the colours are more natural.

You made an incredible image even better.

Athar

[neil phillips]

John this is the kind of question that will devide people the most, Your assement is pretty spot on though, and i pretty much agree with all of it. Its the equatorial detail being softer which is the clincher for me, and thats basically what youve said too. mmmm now im thinking maybe i should have tried a combine of both images thats a idea.

It is interesting to see peoples veiws on this though, i know many fall in the detail camp ED Roach ( whatever happened to him ? ) would have prefered this one for sure

[moocher]

I actually really like this version.....you can push an image too far... just my 2p you understand.

Alan:D

[michaelmorris]

That's a gorgeous image. Personally I like both versions, for different reasons. A more intensively processed image shows the detail wonderfully - if you trying to gather as much data about the weather patterns that is the one I'd go for. However, this one is easier on the eye and is probably much more representataive of what would actually see with the naked eye from close to Jupiter.

There is merit in both styles of image processing.

[AztecastroMcJ]

agree with Michaels comments above Neil

not that i'm really qualified being newbie

i think 2 or 3 versions is prob best solution

also think larger upscaled version looks better smoother

while smaller say 100% size wud be best bit sharper

think its amazing looking at my efforts from last year compared to this year,

and i suppose with more years experience, hopefully the better results will come,

must be gud looking at few yrs worth of images to see improvements

regards James