Back to forums

Which M42 (Orion nebula) version do you like the most?

Request for feedback M42 Messier Objects Emission Nebula Deep Sky
11 replies•428 views
Daniel Arenas avatar
Daniel Arenas avatar
Last december 2021 I shoot to the Orion Nebula with my SkyWatcher Esprit ED80 (400 mm f/5), a non modified DSLR and with no filter at all in a Bortle 5 sky.
Then I processed it with PixInsight and final tweaks with Lightroom. The result I achieved was:


I was very happy with this result because I like the contrasta and this "dark sky". But then someone told me that there's a lot of informations that it doesn't appear in the picture. I think that it appears but very very subtile and in fact with a non calibrated screen it's possible that it may not notice. So, I tried to do another processing attempt. And that was the result. Again processed with PixInsight ant final tweaks with Lightroom (in that case I've desatured a bit the oranges because the signal around M42 wasn't very pleasant to my eyes with that tones, maybe with a dedicated camera the results would be more natural).



What do you think about these two processed images?

Maybe there's no correct processing and I have to achieve a compromise between aesthetic and signal?

Thank you!
Helpful Engaging
kuechlew avatar
kuechlew avatar
To my taste M42 and running man look better in the second version. Background is pushed too far though, it shows too many artifacts.

Clear skies 
Wolfgang
Andy Wray avatar
Andy Wray avatar
I didn't like the stars in the second as they were too prominent, so shrank them and faded them a bit to bring out the dark nebula a bit more.  So I guess what I'm saying is I liked somewhere in-between the two:

jjpoole741 avatar
jjpoole741 avatar
I like the nebulas better in the first one, but just think the background could be lightened a bit. Good work!
Well Written Respectful
Daniel Arenas avatar
Daniel Arenas avatar
@kuechlew @Andy Wray @jjpoole741 thank you so much for your comments!

@kuechlew yes, you're right. This artifacts appeared when I pushed the background in PixInsight. I suppose that my non modified Canon DSLR is not so good enough in these subtile ata around the nebula and I think there's a lot of walking noise too.

@Andy Wray many thanks dude! I appreciate your version. Maybe a bit more star protagonism would like me more but I understand what you mean and obviously the nebula has gained in importance.

All right @jjpoole741 I'm gonna try... maybe that one?

jjpoole741 avatar
jjpoole741 avatar
That’s the one!
kuechlew avatar
kuechlew avatar
I'm a stubborn guy ...

In my perception you're losing detail in the nebula compared to the 2nd version. Compare these regions of your images:
 and 
much more subtlety in the right version. Very obvious for M42 core, more subtle for running man. But maybe it's just me. Don't get me wrong, your images are very nice but since you asked for it ...

The faint stuff requires a lot of integration time in particular with a non-modded camera. And yes, walking noise was my impression too, so dithering may help in the future.

Clear skies
Wolfgang
Helpful
Daniel Arenas avatar
Daniel Arenas avatar
But maybe it's just me. Don't get me wrong, your images are very nice but since you asked for it ...


Of course @kuechlew that’s the way for me to improve my skills. Your comments are welcome and I appreciate a lot your time and your considerations. Many thanks, 🙌.
Dale Penkala avatar
Dale Penkala avatar
I like the 2nd version as well @Daniel Arenas however a lot of this will come down to personal preference. Good points on all accounts here and if you want to cut back on the stars in PI you can do some star reduction to back off the stars somewhat. 
There are different ways of doing this but but my personal favorite is use starnet or star exterminator to separate them, do the work on your nebula image, if you decide you want to do some work on the star mask/frame do it then use pixel math to blend the 2 back together. I like to start at .8-.9 when brining the stars back in.

Dale
Helpful
Dale Penkala avatar
Dale Penkala avatar
I'm a stubborn guy ...

In my perception you're losing detail in the nebula compared to the 2nd version. Compare these regions of your images:
 and 
much more subtlety in the right version. Very obvious for M42 core, more subtle for running man. But maybe it's just me. Don't get me wrong, your images are very nice but since you asked for it ...

The faint stuff requires a lot of integration time in particular with a non-modded camera. And yes, walking noise was my impression too, so dithering may help in the future.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

BTW Danial, forgot to mention that Wolfgang is right. There is a tool in PI that will do this for you called HDR Multiscale Transformation. If you decide to play with the tool make sure you check the boxes “to lightness & lightness mask”. I like to start as 8 layers and go from there. A lot of the time I endup at 6 & 7 layers for my personal taste.

Dale
Helpful
Daniel Arenas avatar
Daniel Arenas avatar
Dale Penkala:
I'm a stubborn guy ...

In my perception you're losing detail in the nebula compared to the 2nd version. Compare these regions of your images:
 and 
much more subtlety in the right version. Very obvious for M42 core, more subtle for running man. But maybe it's just me. Don't get me wrong, your images are very nice but since you asked for it ...

The faint stuff requires a lot of integration time in particular with a non-modded camera. And yes, walking noise was my impression too, so dithering may help in the future.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

BTW Danial, forgot to mention that Wolfgang is right. There is a tool in PI that will do this for you called HDR Multiscale Transformation. If you decide to play with the tool make sure you check the boxes “to lightness & lightness mask”. I like to start as 8 layers and go from there. A lot of the time I endup at 6 & 7 layers for my personal taste.

Dale

Yes Dale,
In the second one I used HDR Multiscale Transformation and I ended up with 6 layers if I’m not wrong. 
Perhaps the best image would be the nebula from the second processing with the “sky” from the third one..

Daniel

PS: By the way you all can call me Dani (it,s my short name; my diminutive).
Dale Penkala avatar
Dale Penkala avatar
Daniel Arenas:
Dale Penkala:
I'm a stubborn guy ...

In my perception you're losing detail in the nebula compared to the 2nd version. Compare these regions of your images:
 and 
much more subtlety in the right version. Very obvious for M42 core, more subtle for running man. But maybe it's just me. Don't get me wrong, your images are very nice but since you asked for it ...

The faint stuff requires a lot of integration time in particular with a non-modded camera. And yes, walking noise was my impression too, so dithering may help in the future.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

BTW Danial, forgot to mention that Wolfgang is right. There is a tool in PI that will do this for you called HDR Multiscale Transformation. If you decide to play with the tool make sure you check the boxes “to lightness & lightness mask”. I like to start as 8 layers and go from there. A lot of the time I endup at 6 & 7 layers for my personal taste.

Dale

Yes Dale,
In the second one I used HDR Multiscale Transformation and I ended up with 6 layers if I’m not wrong. 
Perhaps the best image would be the nebula from the second processing with the “sky” from the third one..

Daniel

PS: By the way you all can call me Dani (it,s my short name; my diminutive).

Dani, the best image is the one YOU like best!  There are several images that I have that many say isn’t the best or isn’t the “traditional” look.
JMHO is all 😊

Dale