Cloud Sculpting re-visited...

[Andy Elliott]

This is a re-working of NGC6820-6823, using a hybrid workflow in Pixinsight and Photoshop.

Shot in SHO using my Esprit 100ED and the ASI1600MM camera.

SII: 39 x 150s

Ha: 110 x 150s

OIII: 43 x 150s

Stars were SHO converted to RGB using Seti Astro’s NB to RGB star combination script.

Files were pre-processed in WBPP in the usual manner.

The initial non-linear processing steps in PI were done using the PiMagic Studio’s script (by Christian Sasse and Craig Stocks). This allows you to take the master light frames from WBPP and do the linear processing steps in a sequential but automated manner. The steps inside the PiMagic script are configurable, and the only difference from my normal workflow was that I used the MAS for the final non-linear stretch (I would normally use GHS). The non-linear processing was then as per my normal workflow; however, I did incorporate a little ‘Orton Glow’ effect using Image Blend.

I have given this image a tighter crop than the original as well.

I have included the original image as a comparison. I’d be interested on people’s feedback. My personal preference is for the re-worked version.

Re-worked version

Original version

 

[AlanLichty]

Non-astro eyes here but I love your rework - much better feeling of depth and the colors really pop. Makes a much more engaging deep space scene to view.

 

[JimFox]

That's an interesting workflow Andy, one I hadn't heard of. I certainly like the results. And I agree I like the new version bettter as it has a more 3D feel to it.

 

[Comet Hunter]

Interesting and nice end result, can you point to any youtube videos teaching this processing concept? Thx!

 

[Andy Elliott]

Interesting and nice end result, can you point to any youtube videos teaching this processing concept? Thx!

This is the link to the PiMagic Studio; there are tutorials on there. https://pimagicstudio.com/

 

[Mike Lewis]

Andy,

Very interesting process you have described. I am not familiar with PiMagic Studio - I am off to go check out the link you provided after I respond here, thanks!

here are my thoughts in no particular order:

• If viewing either of these by themselves without seeing them side by side, the reaction would be 'wow, that's a great image!" I think they are more similar than different at first viewing and at this scale anyway. That is a good thing IMHO, as the original is a great capture and you would not want to totally rework it I don't think.
• I have a nod to the new one over the original for these reasons:
  • I definitely like the crop of the new version better. It brings us closer to the main subject while losing some of the less interesting portions of the frame.
  • There is more definition in the new version (from the Orton Glow perhaps?) making details stand out more, and as Jim says, giving it a more 3D type of feel. This really shows up with dark structures against bright nebulosity and bright structures against dark backgrounds.
• I do like the deeper blue of the central area of the nebula in the new version but it has come at the expense of a very subtle pink color in that same region in the original version that was lost in version 2. That may be inevitable to get that blue to pop more, but I would love to see the blue increase you have without losing those subtle pink transition colors if possible. This is a very small niggle to me though and as these things go could just be an artifact of a different monitor calibration on my end.

I have often posted different versions myself here and elsewhere. Often I do not get much feedback, which can be frustrating. One of the great things about FocalWorld of course is that here you do tend to get some good feedback (especially if you ask for it) and in the case of astro images you can get feedback from both astro imagers and non astro shooters, both of which can be very constructive and often help you decide which version you like the best. But at the end of the day, the best version is the one YOU like the best For me it sometimes takes getting other opinions to decide which version of an image I really like. In your case here you have already decided on your favorite.

I frequently go through many iterations of an image myself, and I have now taken to posting my images here initially for many of the same reasons I just mentioned above. My next astro image I will post (Sh2-216) is already on version 6(!) (but I will NOT be putting everyone though all of the previous versions in this case ) - so I certainly understand reworking images. In my opinion it is MUCH more fun when you already have a high quality result to start from (as is the case here). I also had a good start on my Sh2-216 image fortunately.

Anyway, enough long winded blather from me. Short answer - new version is best to me, improving on what was already a very strong image.

ML