Your pick please

[TwistedThrottle]

@blackstar
I prefer #1. To me, it seems the most natural of the 3, if natural is what you're going for. #2 has the shadows pulled showing lots of grain, but I do like the colorful blue sky. #3 has nice stars, but is lacking detail in the Milky Way. For a shot of the sky, you've given the foreground a lot of real estate, try to do something interesting with it or give the sky more of your image. A quick trick to figure composition is to max out your iso and take a 1 second shot. It'll look like crap but gives you a composition shot you can adjust from. Also, look into taking slightly faster exposures and then stack multiple shots with the same exposure time which leads to less noise and reduced star trails. Not much you can do about Jupiter, it always looks like a midnight sun with long exposures. You could play with radial filters to try to even things out, but personally I kinda like the midnight sun look. The frustrating part about astrophotography is waiting for mother nature to cooperate, but that's also what makes the shots you get feel more special!

 

[Whiskeyman]

I like #2. Actually, I like all three, but like #2 the best.

WM

 

[hark]

I had my Milky Way shot processed to three versions. Please pick one that you deem the best (of the three) and provide your points. To avoid bias, I'll not disclose the different programs used for the three versions until later. Thanks
1.
View attachment 345263

2.
View attachment 345264

3.
View attachment 345265

I'm afraid I can't answer that question since I know nothing about post processing Milky Way images. There must be some way to make the stars not appear so big though. I can't imagine they were that noticeable in the original files, were they?

Cindy, I remember, if correct, the visible period of the MW is from March to Oct. I attach the original jpg below for you to see if the stars are unnaturally big or bright... and as I mentioned it's under-exposed, there are lot more stars hiding... (the image looks exactly as I previewed from viewfinder and live View)

View attachment 345303

@Moab Man - is there any way blackstar can edit the image without making the stars appear to be quite so large or overly noticeable? Or is it just me?

 

[BF Hammer]

I know I am a minority in the photo world using GIMP, but there is available a plugin set for astrophotography work. The last tool on the menu is "star rounding" and it will minimze the size of the stars in your final output. I can demonstrate with the same photo of NEOWISE I did. Only real difference is applying the star rounding filter.

http://www.hennigbuam.de/georg/gimp.html

 

[hark]

I know I am a minority in the photo world using GIMP, but there is available a plugin set for astrophotography work. The last tool on the menu is "star rounding" and it will minimze the size of the stars in your final output. I can demonstrate with the same photo of NEOWISE I did. Only real difference is applying the star rounding filter.

http://www.hennigbuam.de/georg/gimp.html

View attachment 345325 View attachment 345326

That definitely looks more pleasing to me. Maybe there is something similar in the software that blackstar uses.

 

[blackstar]

Poll -- so far, but late votes are still acceptable:

#1: one
#2: six
#3: one (with condition)
N.A.: one

My pick: #3 for its vividness and multiple color shades of the MW

 

[blackstar]

Specifics of the different PP programs and methods used for the three:
#1: RAW file used with Darktable; complete manual heavy process implementations starting with exp and ending with raw denoise,

#2: original Jpg file used with Nik-collections' HDR Efex Pro; Default Preset of Basic group selected; no exp or other filters utilized except the White balance,

#3: RAW file used with Aurora HDR (trial version); Natural Preset of Essential group selected; no exp or other filters utilized except the White balance.

Was surprised by Aurora HDR's ability to bring out so wide array of (bright) color shades from the faint raw image data. Yet, somehow #3 received only 2 votes (including mine). Still can't decide if to out $99 for the software.

The two HDR programs both turn the scene color to grayish and brown-ish shade (closer to real natural color?). Not to my like, so I twisted the white balance (color adjustment) toward blue shade (no impact on the vivid color shades of the MW).

 

[blackstar]

Hi BF, Appreciate your Gimp plugin tip and demo. I am a Gimp user too, but with Mac. Unfortunately, Astronomy gimp plugin lacks an OSX package for me to use it. I do find another gimp plugin: pyastro2 which I can install. However, after check into it the "rounding star" filter in this plugin works exactly opposite to your demo. It rounds and ENLARGES star! ... BTW, I have to wonder what purpose and usefulness are with your demo? It looks like stars are getting smaller and even varnish from the scene... We know the MW is comprised of many stars and it does co-exist with other stars in the sky. As the filter is applied, what would happen to the MW? Even the MW is not affected after the filter, will the scene become imbalanced and unnatural?

 

[blackstar]

Per Fred's request, here is #3 (MW sky) + #2 (foreground):

 

[Moab Man]

@Moab Man - is there any way blackstar can edit the image without making the stars appear to be quite so large or overly noticeable? Or is it just me?

In PS I would do a color range selection on the stars and then reduce the selection/invert and paint in the surrounding black.

 

[blackstar]

Thanks, Moab. I don't use ps, but I may try with other photo editors. Sounds like a complicated and tedious task...

 

[blackstar]

@blackstar
I prefer #1. To me, it seems the most natural of the 3, if natural is what you're going for. #2 has the shadows pulled showing lots of grain, but I do like the colorful blue sky. #3 has nice stars, but is lacking detail in the Milky Way. For a shot of the sky, you've given the foreground a lot of real estate, try to do something interesting with it or give the sky more of your image. A quick trick to figure composition is to max out your iso and take a 1 second shot. It'll look like crap but gives you a composition shot you can adjust from. Also, look into taking slightly faster exposures and then stack multiple shots with the same exposure time which leads to less noise and reduced star trails. Not much you can do about Jupiter, it always looks like a midnight sun with long exposures. You could play with radial filters to try to even things out, but personally I kinda like the midnight sun look. The frustrating part about astrophotography is waiting for mother nature to cooperate, but that's also what makes the shots you get feel more special!

Thanks, TT. I am pleased to hear your pick with #1, which is actually done by my own processing efforts (no preset is used). Also, your insightful comments and tips are helpful for my continuing learning experiments. Thank you

 

[blackstar]

Cindy, I have been pondering about your mysterious perception of the large stars in my MW photos. Here are the possible cracks on that matter:

(1) Shutter speed too slow causing star trailing effect,

(2) Moisture in air producing optical refraction causing light (from stars) spread wide spectrum of color and space (size). There was a medium rain shower that late afternoon after sunset. Until the late-night, the sky cleared up and I had a naked-eye sighting of the dark clear sparkling sky full of twinkling stars, which I couldn't make in my camera preview and review. However, unaware of the moisture in the air at the moment (if true),

(3) (probably the most plausible explanation) The geological factor: the site is at 9500 ft elevation and the shooting distance may well reflect the size of objects in images. At first, 10000 ft may seem like nothing if objects are far at infinity. Truth may claim a difference. The following pictures could verify this issue a little, if not completely: #3 is the same #3 as this thread starts, #4 and #5 were taken two nights after at a different site that is at least 2000 ft lower: (#5 was aimed to a different galaxy farther away) Are they showing stars in different sizes? Your judge.

#3


#4


#5