Way over processed or not enough?

[Carolgentle]

Thank you all for your input, much appreciated. Don't have much time atm & I'm reading on my iPod.
Will be back later

thank you

Carol

[Canon Pete]

Gotta agree, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

What I like is the fact that you have tones in that image Carol ,in the Mare edges, also nice highlights in the crater walls, nice shadows showing as well.

Clear Skies

Pete

[Tesselator]

Hehe, I'm in the opposite camp and I think people are saying "it's personal preference" because it's too involved and a bit of a pain to explain. Sure some of it is personal but we all know a good properly processed image from one that needs help. It is actually a science unless you're drawing on it with brushes or something. It's all math and it all makes perfect sense to those who know the math behind it.

IMO, most of the challenge is knowing what to do, in which combination, and in what order to do it in - as the order in which processes (tools) are carried out make a huge difference. It's kinda like chess (also a math based science) in that if you do the wrong thing first then several "moves" later you'll be paying for it. Luckily we can take back as many moves as we like (undo) so it's not as difficult as chess. But it is very much alike to the game. You learn how each piece moves (what each tool does) and how they can work together and support each other for the desired outcome.

Short of buying a book or taking on-line tutorials (and there are gobs of free on-line tutorials!), I think the best way to learn is to just dive in and explore the limits and affects of each tool. Of course if you can focus on just the most important tools and skip the nuttier more useless ones, that will save you some time and effort. On that note here are some things you should pay attention to and learn about if you don't already know about them:

1. Lab color: Get to know it. Use it. It's better than any other color model to edit in! Especially for cleanup or anything invasive.
2. Curves and Levels: Find out about these. They should probably be used on every shot ever taken through a telescope - no kidding!
3. Tone curves (and Tone mapping): Learn what these are, what tools affect them (like "Shadows And Highlights", mid-tone contrast, Curves, Levels, and Brightness/Contrast, in PS), etc.
4. Sharpening: There are several common sharpening algorithms and each one is a little different - and better (or worse) on a given data-set (image).
5. Linear and non-linear Hue adjustments: Check into the difference between the two and how they might be useful in astrophotography editing.
6. Gamma and Exposure correction: Check these out.
7. Noise reduction: It's actually useful to study up on some of the causes of noise so that you can avoid it in the first place as well as being better prepared to remove it when you're faced with it. Learn the three or four kinds of noise digital photographs and long exposures suffer from and research the best tools to deal with it. Topaz Suite is one of the best if not thee best!
8. High Dynamic Range (HDR) and exposure blending: Check out the math and technique behind these! This will REALLY help you to understand tone curves and help you to understand how to build very rich looking space images. Also find out the difference between real HDR and the "HDR effect" that some photographers seem to love - actually called "tone mapping HDR source data".
9. Bit Precision (AKA Bit Depth): Learn why it's always a good idea to edit images (regardless of the source depth) in 16bits. 16 bit Lab color to be precise.
10. Median tool: Check it out and also it's use in relation to noise, learn why some noise and or dithering is actually needed.
11. Blending modes: Photoshop, Gimp, and CinePaint all use layers and have a large assortment of layer blending modes that are extremely useful for image processing space images. Check out how they are best used and to what affect. Blending modes can also be used with just about every tool operation in PS by using Fade.

Well, that should get you started. That may seem like a lot but actually you should be able to cover the basics on all of those in a night or two if you're any good with a search engine.

Have fun! That's the most important bit!


.

[alsetalokin]

Tess, that sounds pretty complex and involved...but I know it's necessary knowledge. I'll certainly be using your post as a "study guide" !! Thanks !!

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but the grass is greener on the other side of the fence...Carol's image is very pretty already, I wonder what it will look like when she's done applying some of the techniques suggested above...I'm looking forward to seeing it !!

[BKBrown]

Tess, that sounds pretty complex and involved...but I know it's necessary knowledge. I'll certainly be using your post as a "study guide" !! Thanks !!

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but the grass is greener on the other side of the fence...Carol's image is very pretty already, I wonder what it will look like when she's done applying some of the techniques suggested above...I'm looking forward to seeing it !!

I concur with your post alsetalokin, Tess has provided a good study guide. But I think Carol, who is already producing some nice images, was looking for some fundamental feedback: tone, contrast, lighting, etc. I launched an earlier response and now think I probably went too far bringing in wavelet sharpening and LR deconvolution. It did not even occur to me to ask if the image presented is a single frame shot or stack (Carol?). Most planetary imagers (and DSO folks too) tend to think in terms of stacks and take for granted the need for multi-step processing. That can lead us to overthink our responses sometimes...I know I need to slow down now and then and try to pay attention to what is being asked. Hopefully Carol will find all of this discussion useful at some level.
Clear Skies, Brian

[Dublin sky watch]

As with everything in AP it can quickly become a technical conversation rather then a viewing conversation...

[Carolgentle]

I concur with your post alsetalokin, Tess has provided a good study guide. But I think Carol, who is already producing some nice images, was looking for some fundamental feedback: tone, contrast, lighting, etc. I launched an earlier response and now think I probably went too far bringing in wavelet sharpening and LR deconvolution. It did not even occur to me to ask if the image presented is a single frame shot or stack (Carol?). Most planetary imagers (and DSO folks too) tend to think in terms of stacks and take for granted the need for multi-step processing. That can lead us to overthink our responses sometimes...I know I need to slow down now and then and try to pay attention to what is being asked. Hopefully Carol will find all of this discussion useful at some level.
Clear Skies, Brian

Hi and thank you all for replying to this post.

I was doing a bit of fishing with this one and just wanted to open a discussion on processing Lunar shots. As a newbie to AP I have picked up a lot of bits and pieces from reading the posts on the forum but so far they are just that, isolated bits of information that I haven't pieced together yet!

For example I've heard it said many times on the forum, to shoot in RAW as it gives you more info to work with, I do shoot in RAW but don't know what to do with it! My Canon camera allows me to shoot in RAW and JPEG at the same time ...and I have to confess that the RAW files lie unused on my hard drive! I usually just use the JPEG files and do very basic tweeking in ACDsee for PENTAX 3.0 (a free programme which came with a camera). Last night I decided to open the Raw file (I have to use zoom browser EX, another free programme which came with another old camera to open it and save to TIFF). I used the TIFF file to do a little bit of tweeking in ASDsee and saved as a JPEG to post on the forum!

Brian you hit the nail on the head when you said "The main observation I can make is that your camera may be giving you a bit more data to work with than you realize". That is where I am, I have a good image with lots of RAW data but don't know how to manipulate that data to get the best out of it!

Tess has provided an excellent study guide (thank you very much Tess,I'm sure this will be something I'll refer to alot in the future!) I admit it is way above me just now but as I work through it, I'll begin to fit the pieces together and understand the tools for processing, how and in what order to use them. (Didn't realise order was so important!)

I do take on board that personal opinion is key to how the final image will turn out but I'm sure that with a bit more understanding I can get my tools to work better for me and produce an image which has my personal processing style written all over it!

Knowledge of the subject is something else I think is key to processing. As Declan said, the moon is made up of varying shades and tones of grey.They are subtle but are there. I was looking at Pete's excellent coloured processed image of the moon,and noted that the colours make these differences very clear. I wanted to bring out these subtle differences in my image and took a stab at it by playng with the light and dark and shadows and highlights! The image was processed way more than usual in my attempt to achieve this.

Your reprocessed image was very helpful Brian, I downloaded it and compared it to the original and there was a marked improvement. Very noticable in fact!Much crisper than the original! To answer your question, it was just one shot and no I don't know what LR deconvolution is, yet!! I have used registax a couple of times and have played with wavelets so have an idea of what they can do. It's not a bad idea for the conversation to get a bit more technical. Gaps in knowledge often come to light that way, questions can be asked, answers can be shared. Your technical chat hasn't overwhelmed me, just the opposite in fact. It has spurred me on to improve. It's easy to stay with what you know in your comfort zone but I took up AP to be challenged, to push myself to learn new things. I have and I'm loving it!

Anyway long story short, there is a lot of expertise on the forum which is readily shared, this is something I always appreciate and never take for granted. It has been a great fishing expedition for me personally and I've got alot from it which will keep me occupied for quite a wee while.

Thanks to you all.

Clear skies

Carol

[Carolgentle]

Hi Tess,

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply.
It will keep me googling for a wee while and has given me the direction I needed.

Much appreciated.

Clear skies

Carol

[Tesselator]

Tess, that sounds pretty complex and involved...but I know it's necessary knowledge. I'll certainly be using your post as a "study guide" !! Thanks !!

I may be taking some things for granted but I think it's really not that complex. It can seem like it tho. To bring it back to the chess analogy it's a bit like we're just handed the pieces and the board and told to win a game. So at first it's like, Ummm, OK, where do I start?

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but the grass is greener on the other side...

That's really true. And that part is a bit of an art... I mean when we are fist presented with an image that's finished or in one of it's finished versions we wow. But during editing it can be a bit testing to judge relativity. There it becomes nice to rely on one's sense of art and beauty.

I think Carol... was looking for some fundamental feedback: tone, contrast, lighting, etc.
...imagers tend to think in terms of stacks and take for granted the need for multi-step processing.

As with everything in AP it can quickly become a technical conversation rather then a viewing conversation...

Please forgive my verbosity it's a bad habit I picked up as a professor (hehe, professing... ), but I think the two are inseparable. I mean when the question is technical critique or uncertainty.

I was doing a bit of fishing with this one and just wanted to open a discussion on processing Lunar shots.
I have... isolated bits of information that I haven't pieced together yet!

For example.., I do shoot in RAW but don't know what to do with it!
...the RAW files lie unused on my hard drive! I usually just use...

Do you have or can you get ahold of Photoshop? If you can you should try to get ahold of Photoshop CS5. It's a very good app!

Here's a list of apps that I've tried which have a free trial period, and that also have RAW processing built in:

• Aperture,
• SilverFast,
• PhotoLine,
• LightRoom,
• CaptureONE,
• RAW Developer,
• Bibble PRO,
• LightZone,
• Photo Mechanic,
• Pixelmator,
• DXO-Optics,
• Helicon Filter,
• Picasa,
• RAW Therapee,
• PhotoStudio,
• SilkyPix,
• dcraw.

You can round robin for eternal free RAW developing or install all at once. I think if you do 2 or 3 a day and run the same selection of "images in need" through them as you install then many of the topics being discussed here will be illuminated for you. They don't have to be space images.

I have a good image with lots of RAW data but don't know how to manipulate that data to get the best out of it!

One way would be to set your camera to RAW only and force yourself to use a RAW processor for each image. Yeah, you'll be duplicating the automation of the camera for a lot common photos but there will be one in ten or more that make you wonder why you never did this before. It will force you to learn the basics. For me I use Capture One the most when I really care about the photograph being the most eye-pleasingly beautiful (maybe like wedding photos, etc.) and the PhotoShop/Adobe Camera RAW/Bridge combination for day to day hobby stuff or when I want to be technical - like for Space or photomacrography (microscope) images.

...as I work through it, I'll begin to fit the pieces together and understand the tools for processing, how and in what order to use them. (Didn't realise order was so important!)

Yes, very important. For example in this thread Flower Session 99 [Page 1]: Konica Minolta Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review I posted some images I processed from a point & shoot camera (RAW) and in message #8 or so, a bit past 1/2 down the page I give a few processing recipes. In them (for example) if the first UnSharpen Mask (USM) operation were to switch places with the noise removal step then the final result would be very very different.

That might actually be a good thread to read all the through. LordV joined us and linked to his site (with many tutorials). It's mostly about photomacrography but almost all of it applies directly to space stuff though less so for DSO I would imagine. For your moon images it sure would though.

I do take on board that personal opinion is key to how the final image will turn out but I'm sure that with a bit more understanding I can get my tools to work better for me and produce an image which has my personal processing style written all over it!

Knowledge of the subject is something else I think is key to processing.

Yep! Yup! Agree.

I was looking at Pete's excellent coloured processed image of the moon,and noted that the colours make these differences very clear. I wanted to bring out these subtle differences in my image and took a stab at it by playng with the light and dark and shadows and highlights! The image was processed way more than usual in my attempt to achieve this.

It looked good! Here's me having fun on the day you posted your image. I wasn't going to post them up because I didn't know if it was OK to do so and because the edits I made were quite rough. But I figure, what the heck... And now I know it's OK to post mods here.


Original......................................Mod. ..............................Mod

Hi Tess,

Much appreciated.

Clear skies

Carol

You're welcome. I like talking about I know and learning what I don't. Just slap me if I become too presumptuous.

[Carolgentle]

Hi Tess,

Thanks very much for taking the time to discuss this a bit more. Glad you posted your image mods! You’ve well illustrated what processing can do to enhance an image, your two images are very different interpretations of the shot. I especially liked the coloured one.

You've given me lots of information and I’ll need time to work my way through it. I did quickly check out your post on dpreview, those flower shots are beautiful & I'll give your "processing recipies" a try.

I don’t have Photoshop, it’s a bit pricey so I’ll have to go down the budget route, the list of free apps. is helpful.

I will try your suggestion and re-set my camera to RAW only,that will force me to learn! lol.


Clear skies

Carol