Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

IC1318 Cygnus

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
25 replies to this topic

#1 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 20 September 2008 - 01:02 AM

This is a poor representation of the area around Sadr or Gamma Cygni in Cygnus. Many nebulae in the area and I hope I have them listed correctly.
IC1318 - LDN 889 - B347 and the Open cluster NGC 6910.

Pentax 67 400 EDif lens E200 at F4 35 min. Manual guide.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2652817-Sadr.400.jpg


#2 s58y

s58y

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 6,519
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2004

Posted 20 September 2008 - 11:19 PM

Good shot -- It's nice to see the whole area in a single frame (without having to make a mosaic).

#3 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 21 September 2008 - 06:23 PM

Thank you. It's a good image on the film. Once I get more experience with PS processing I will re-post these images for comparison. It's difficult realizing that regardless of how difficult the shot was, and what you went through - that it can all be for nothing if you don't know how to bring it all out in PS.

Igor

#4 calder

calder

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2005

Posted 22 September 2008 - 10:57 PM

Very nice image Igor. I'll be looking forward to seeing your re-posted image. I know it's tough to compress those large negatives to a viewable size here.

Bob

#5 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 23 September 2008 - 01:24 AM

Thank you. You're wish is my command. First up is the NGC7000 photo. Scanned with Microtek Pro software instead of the Silverfast that I have been using. I think there is a huge difference - and more to come. Please have a look, and I will do this one next. It's late again, so tomorrow.

Igor

#6 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 30 September 2008 - 03:46 PM

Well, here is another rendition. I've learned a bunch about the scanner, and am getting better results. The scan initially is very close to what I can see on the film under an 8x lupe.

A bit of curves in PS and hopefully it looks good enough. I've sized to to conform to the contest specs to see what it looks like.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2672447-GammaCygni.jpg


#7 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 30 September 2008 - 04:12 PM

Trying to get as much input regarding my image as possible between the last 2 posted.

Igor

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2672507-GammaCygni.CN.jpg


#8 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 30 September 2008 - 08:25 PM

Trying one more.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2672976-Test3.cn.jpg


#9 calder

calder

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2005

Posted 01 October 2008 - 05:23 AM

Hi there Igor,

Definitely an improvement from your original image but I think the compression to jpeg is still hampering the potential quality of the image. What was the dimensional size in pixels of your original image? What was the DPI scale that you used for scanning as well as after scanning and what percentage of compression was used for the jpeg? One thing you might try is reducing the size of your image to 600x600 before the jpeg compression. Though the end result will be smaller you will find that you will not have to compress the image nearly as much to get it to the 100Kb limit and your image will be clearer overall. I have a wide field shot of Cygnus that I took and posted here last year. I have since honed my skills a bit and I am going to repost it. I had the same problem with artifacts from over-compressing the image to jpeg as your having and as I didn't want to rescan the image at a lower resolution for reposting, I simply reduced the size of the image before compression. I hope this helps.

Bob

#10 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 01 October 2008 - 05:40 AM

The limits of size (100K) limit the quality of images on this forum and is a sore spot for us that like to present our work in the quality it deserves. Wide field work with lots of stars compresses poorly and cannot compete in contests. See any wide-field film contest entries for September in this forum?

Your right, smaller images will pan out better, but again they are smaller.

Jim

#11 calder

calder

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2005

Posted 01 October 2008 - 06:30 AM

I couldn't agree with you more Jim. It's a bear and I don't see a change coming because of server space and those who are still using dialup either due to budget constraints or non-accessibility to high speed internet service. Providing a link to our own web/photo pages is about the only way for others in these forums to see the wide field photos we take in their full glory.

Bob

#12 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 01 October 2008 - 11:32 AM

Thanks for the info. Yes, lots of compression and the image here bears little resemblance to the original. Scanned at 600 and pixel size was 1260 x 1600.

Image was reduced in PS before the compression. I will try it again to see if I can get any improvement. If not, I will work on my skills and get a link where they can be seen in full resolution. This will really limit our wide field film entries down to typical narrow targets like M13 etc. Is it worth it? PS I really like your Cygnus rework. Different way of looking at it but the dark nebulae are really well captured. Nice contrast between them and the stars. I can see where you really had to reduce the image to get it show properly.

Igor

#13 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 01 October 2008 - 12:55 PM

Jim, I will take a whack at it, and if I can get this frame to look good, then I will enter it and see what happens. I'm not expecting any winners, just an offering so that others can see what we are all about. You had some very good comments regarding your Antares shot, and that would be good enough for me. We can't just fade away. This may encourage a few to look at yours and others web sites to look at the "real thing". Who knows where it would go from there.

Igor

#14 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 01 October 2008 - 04:53 PM

Bob made a good point about providing links to higher resolution images, but those links cannot be used in contests.

#15 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 01 October 2008 - 06:31 PM

Jim, I can't understand why links cannot be used. It would save tons of bandwidth for CN, and allow the full potential to be displayed. There is absolutely no use doing medium format under the existing conditions. I'm thinking 35 mm is about it - so what's the point? I've squeezed this image down to the minimum, and if it looks grainy then I will not enter it in the contest. I will go look for the typical M13 shots on 35mm.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2674902-GS.CN.jpg


#16 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 01 October 2008 - 06:40 PM

One last kick at the cat. Let me know what you guys think. Igor

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2674921-GS.CN2.jpg


#17 calder

calder

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2005

Posted 01 October 2008 - 08:39 PM

Hey Igor, thats much better.... I like it! Good photo. I think the reason links are probably not allowed in contests is because of the potential for viruses and unwanted cookies/spam. Spam originating from Yahoo sites is the reason I don't use the Yahoo groups. Non-the-less you have a great image there. Despite your hesitation, you should submit it anyway for the contest. Win or lose your still getting your hard work out there for people to see.

By the way I usually scan my images at either 2400dpi or 1200dpi but have gone as high as 4800dpi as I print my images in an 8x10 format. My original image for Cygnus measured approx. 4000x3000 pixels reduced to 600x450 for submission on these forums.

Bob

#18 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 01 October 2008 - 08:59 PM

Nice images Igor. The advantages of medium format are visible in your image, but would be overwhelming if allowed to be seen in their full glory! I am constantly amazed how much you can zoom into one of these images before you reach "the bottom". Medium format is where film imaging is at and can compete with dslr wide field. Again, great shot of this region.

Jim

#19 tommyhawk13

tommyhawk13

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2007

Posted 01 October 2008 - 09:31 PM

That's great!
I wouldn't touch it any further. :goodjob:

#20 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 01 October 2008 - 10:19 PM

Thanks again. This one was scanned a 1000 and reduced to 650 x 650. I think it came out to about 75k.

I will try another scan at a much higher rate and see how it looks when reduced. Don't know if it would come out much better here? I kept it in 16 bit format. Wonder if I should have changed it to 8 bit and boosted the size? Probably go grainy again.

Just to make sure - is it image 5 or 6 you prefer?

Igor

#21 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 01 October 2008 - 10:22 PM

Thanks Jim. I think my head is finally out of the mud.

Which image number do you prefer?

Igor

#22 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 01 October 2008 - 10:23 PM

Thanks. I'm guessing you liked the last one best?

Igor

#23 tommyhawk13

tommyhawk13

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2007

Posted 01 October 2008 - 10:34 PM

Yes, the last one looks the best. I should have been more clear.

#24 Paulimer

Paulimer

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2003

Posted 02 October 2008 - 08:08 PM

Igor,

On the contrary I like the second one best, coz you have not suppressed the background to total blackness and the colour balance is better than the others.

I think you may need to create an anti-vignetting frame to bring out the proper colour balance, especially with medium formats. If you process a pre-vignetting treatment frame too much it will end up with something like your last image - The more you process the more you will bring out the centre sky brightness rather than the nebulosity.

Hope these helps

Paul

#25 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 02 October 2008 - 08:30 PM

Understood. I've tried to maintain a balance, but just do not have enough PS experience at this point. My version is also older so when I work layers I have to drop to 8 bit. I will be upgrading to CS version soon, but in the meantime.

This attempt tried to address that, and to fit the guidelines better. Trying to compress a 35 MB file down to these parameters really plays havoc with the image. I've cropped out about 25% of the image on the top, bottom, and left side t.o focus on the nebulae. I have also learned a bit more regarding my scanner. This time I raised the quality level to best. This let the scanner do 4 passes to calibrate before taking a slower pass for the final image. I think finer detail and more stars have come out

Let me know what you think. I can use all the help I can get.

Igor

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2677173-GS.CN.2.jpg



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics