Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by rcole_sooner, Sep 25, 2017.
I certainly feel that too, and want to keep that in my processed images.
More practice needed.
This is a tough call. Color is hard to pin down. I've seen some of these in a 40" scope and even then the assisted naked eye doesn't see much color. Maybe in a 3 meter scope that changes. Having looked at photographs of these for years that have been produced by giant telescopes, Hubble, etc - I feel like the processed ones give me more of a sense of what I would expect. I know that raw images of things where I can actually visually compare to the real thing tend to look washed out with low contrast - you have to mess with them quite a bit to make them look "natural". The stacking program seems to be taking a stab at dealing with that - or it might just be an artifact of the stacking. I think if it were me the first thing I would focus on is controlling the contrast/blowout, then focus on color. In fact you could probably take some conventional images at the same ISO and stack them just to provide a reference point for tweaking your process. Dunno since I've never tried that specifically - but coming up with some kind of known good reference seems like a reasonable starting point.
I gotta say the raw images have a lot more detail than I was expecting for all of that.
I reprocessed a few of these images to give them a more "natural" color. I am much happier with these results.
Horsehead especially cleaned up beautifully. Very nice indeed.