Re: NGC1977 - Mark (new upload)
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mark de Regt" <deregt@...> wrote:
>that I had
> Quite a bit better. A Gaussian blur of the color layer can really help
> reduce the color noise which shows through; you've done well.
> The IDAS filter, to me, isn't worth the loss of signal. I found
> to do twice the exposure time to get the same amount of signal; it'seasier
> and quicker to process out the gradients than it is to get twice as muchThank you, Mark.
> exposure time. YMMV, but you're not going to get detailed, noise-free
> pictures without a great deal of clean signal.
> Nice work.
I will have to try it once without the IDAS LPS, but I am so used to
it that am a bit scared wasting a nights work not using it and having
to deal with a severe gradient due to LP.
I have 4 street lights around my house. I do cut hem once in a while
and reconnect them when my session is over. I know it is not legal
doing so, but I live in a "remote" area traffic wise. Almost no cars
are passing here. So it is not a big deal. But the other street lights
are still having a nefast effect on imaging.
But I guess, with practice I will learn to deal with light pollution
gradients. If not, I will have to convert completely to narrowband
- Much better! I was going to ask you if you were using a light
pollution filter,but Mark beat me to it. He's absolutly right about
not needing it. I image in a light polluted area and used a filter at
first.Not any more. Take lots and lots of subframes to combine.
Consider 4 to 10 hrs of luminence and then a couple hrs each of RGB
binned. Looks like your doing just fine on processing. Have fun.
> Thanks for your positive critique. I've been busy re-processing the
> image and I took a completely different approach.
> I know that my imaging site is not the best one due to the light
> pollution even using a IDAS LPS filter. This filters helps a lot,
> I applied the GradentXTerminator to each channel and than once again
> on the complete LRGB. There seems to be an improvement. I also
> the RGB image quite a lot before adding it to the luminance. I dosee
> an improvement, but I have to cut down on the stretching. Otherwiseto
> that noise is coming back. The only thing that I could do in order
> increase a bit more detail in the nebula was selecting the nebulawith
> the polygon lasso tool, expanding and feathering it. Than I appliedstarting
> some curves and levels to it.
> Personally I find there is an improvement, but please keep the
> critique coming. I learned a lot in redoing the image and am
> to get a better feel for what is happening in Photoshop. I stillhave
> to learn a lot...
> Here's the new link: http://tinyurl.com/2pwsjy
- --- In email@example.com, "Dale" <nraider217@...> wrote:
> Much better! I was going to ask you if you were using a light
> pollution filter,but Mark beat me to it. He's absolutly right about
> not needing it. I image in a light polluted area and used a filter at
> first.Not any more. Take lots and lots of subframes to combine.
> Consider 4 to 10 hrs of luminence and then a couple hrs each of RGB
> binned. Looks like your doing just fine on processing. Have fun.
I will try this. I hope the weather remains fine today, so can get out