![]() I can't find a great example at the moment, but examples exist which literally scream that they are "natural" and not overprocessed at all. I think even in the wonderful image first posted in this thread, there is the beginning of this effect. I don't know if I'm the only one to notice this, probably not. I get out more detail, but it begins to seem artificial. It is hard to describe, but I can watch it happening when I process. at a certain point which some might call the start of "over-processing" the image starts to lose a "natural" look and begins to look like an oil painting. One thing I've begun to notice is the possible effect of post-processing. I guess there are multi-narrowband filters for OSC cameras these days that will capture S-II but I don't know of a way to separate it out using them. One thing I liked about mono was the ability to separate out S-II which seemed like a good thing in some targets. I'm just starting to do a few mono images lately and did OSC with and without dual band filters for a bit more than a year. One can never get consensus on topics like this but the closest you get people to agreeing on is that the OSC is now very close to mono under dark skies. There have been many mono versus OSC threads on both this forum and the experienced forum. Or maybe I am missing something - like perhaps a mono camera working better in more light-polluted areas (I believe the photographer said it was taken in Bortle 1), or work better on certain DSO targets other than nebulae, etc? Is there really more detail to be captured? Better coloration? Less noise? Now, I am new to this and still learning a lot but just looking at this image, I can't imagine there being much, if any, room for improvement. I saw this image today on Astrobin of the Tarantula Nebula, taken with a color ZWO camera - the ASI294MC Pro to be specific. I understand how monos work, and why they are better theoretically in terms of the greater amount of data that you can capture from the sensor, and better control over the individual color channels in post-processing.īut is it possible that their benefits can't really be seen/appreciated in your final images? Also with skills in post processing is just as important as correctly polar align and choosing the right gain and exposure time for the given circumstances.Įdited by unimatrix0, 23 February 2023 - 03:58 PM. What you should take away from the image is, that you don't need the latest greatest, but dark skies can clearly show a huge improvement in image quality in a rather short time. ![]() On the other hand, with mono-narrowband becoming on its own art style with various SHO/HaOO/ HaRGB and a whole bunch of other combos people come up with to put a black/white picture into a color mode while allowing them to image faint nebulae with good details instead of spending 5x more on the target and all they catch is their neighbor's porch light in the corner. There is no cure for dark skies really so most try to do their best. Most people are not as fortunate and just slight increase of light pollution increases the integration times by a large percentage and the images are still can't be equal. The person who shot that image is I almost can guarantee (Western Australia) that he is at a dark sky spot in the middle of nowhere. ![]() No 3- how many nights of clear skies he or she gets / what's the weather like in that location No 2 just shows that he isn't shooting through a coke bottle, but neither shooting it from a pro-observatory with a half a million dollar scope. No 1 is probably most important for most people and greatly hinder (or help) their imaging. integration time (time spent on the target). ![]() You must see the person taking the picture of his Just looking it a done picture is one thing and there are far more involved. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |