The Western Veil

[Stefan B]

After seeing everyone's great Western Veil images I wanted to know if I am able to create a less ridiculous rendition than my first one... So I stretched less (the ROI was inspired by Dietmar viewtopic.php?p=12905#p12905), included more of the original FOV and tried to be more subtle in general although that's always a challenge for me. If there's something in the data I'd like to show...often just not very pretty...

It could be even more subtle... but an improvement in my eyes.

Regards
Stefan

[decay]

Hi Stefan, that's so difficult ... most times I have the same problem and it is hard to decide what is overcooked or not. Sometimes it helps to wait some days and to judge later once again. And I'm always glad to hear the opinion of the others here in the forum. Most times that helps a lot to get a new view.

I don't think that your first rendition was ridiculous. Indeed it seems to be a _bit_ overcooked, but I'm not sure, why exactly. I think it has something do to with the background, the fainter parts of the nebula and - maybe - and sadly - the stars?!

I think you succeeded better with background and stars in your new rendition. But I have the impression that details, the glare and the crisp appearance of the bright OIII parts suffered a bit?

2022-08-04 20_52_22-Window.png (585.42 KiB) Viewed 2010 times

I had the same problem with the glare as well, and therefore I did the stretch with darktable afterwards. But what happened with the details in your case?

Really, I don't know. And of course this is only my very personal opinion ... I think

Best regards, Dietmar.

[Stefan B]

Hi Dietmar,

sorry for my late reply!

Indeed it seems to be a _bit_ overcooked, but I'm not sure, why exactly. I think it has something do to with the background, the fainter parts of the nebula and - maybe - and sadly - the stars?!

I guess you nailed it. Fainter parts of the nebula don't have enough SNR to push them like in the first renditions and as I've said, with this stretch the star field drove me crazy.

But I have the impression that details, the glare and the crisp appearance of the bright OIII parts suffered a bit? [...]
But what happened with the details in your case?

I feel the details are still all there but you're probably right about the glare. I didn't push that hard on the OIII in the second rendition although I maybe could since those bright areas have lots of SNR. After looking at it for some days I still think that the second rendition is the better compromise. But as you've said, it's a matter of taste

Regards
Stefan

[decay]

sorry for my late reply

No problem! I was a little afraid I had offended you

[Stefan B]

I was a little afraid I had offended you

No! But I had no time to answer during the day and at the night my notebook was out in the field imaging and without connection to the internet. And I don't like typing long texts on the mobile as I am doing now. But I'll keep it short.