[RCC] How to make a picture more "catchy"?

I don't know if is just false modesty, but your image selected by Andi (https://astrob.in/qmyme6/C/) is wonderful, especially the 3D effect about crescent nebula

Die Launische Diva:
Maybe firstly because your framing is too tight for what you are trying to demonstrate and secondly the bottom and lower left borders of the image seems as somewhat brighter as a consequence of a improper gradient removal. Also, the optical aberrations may annoy some (but not me FWIW).

Hmm, I believe you have a point here....!

Wei-Hao Wang:
This is a wonderful picture.

Generally speaking, for a dense star field like this, it would be good to do a pass of BXT or standard star shrinking to make the stars less prominent. Another approach is to run star removal to enhance the background nebula without enhancing the stars and then to add the star back. Personally, I do a bit of both, because the two approaches are not really interchangeable. They work slightly differently. You may even do some unsharp masking or filtering (such as wavelet processing or high-pass enhancing of different scales) in the starless image, to further strengthen the structure in the nebulas that you would like to show people. The end result should be stronger impression of nebulas (bright or dark nebulas), which is generally what most people like.  

I hope this helps.

What I admire the most about your images is how well you handle the backdrop. For example this one:

https://www.astrobin.com/ehe6f0/

I have seen M106 so many times, but I have never seen a better backdrop, with so many small tiny galaxies coming through. Don't get me wrong that M106 is phenomenal, but that background is what sets it apart from the others for me.

Color boosting using Photoshop layers.
Contrast boosting using Softlight blending
Bloom effect using Screen blending

This is the result

I would dump a substantial amount of time into the Ha signal.  Looks like there's quite a bit left to expose in your photo.  Ha IMO gives alot of depth, other than that, it's just a less interesting region.

I think even if astrophotography is very techincal, in this regard you can use some creative ways to make your image more attractive to look at.
The one big thing you as photographer can do, is to lead the eye of the viewer to the right place of the image to show them what you want to show them.
you can do that with contrast, with color, with sharpness and leading lines. In your case I feel like the Nebula is quite hidden next to all the stars, which there is an abundence of. looking at this image your eye jumps around the image to find the focal point. Also because the Nebula isn't completely captured in the image, it doesn't stick out as the point of focus. 

Take any of your other photographs, you know what you're looking at and it's clear where the eye is lead to. In this case the eye is lead basically outside the image, that way you're kind of not satisfied looking at it.

Nothing against, your images, they are really amazing!!!! But I think it's an interesting thing to think about while doing astrophotography.

Hello!

To be honest, I am overwhemled by both the amount and message of your reactions!
So thank you so much for your kind comments!

Some objects can be processed to create a very intriguing 3D-effect, like the Wolf-Rayet image Andi and Fabio mentioned (appreciate your "heads up"!).
Other objects are simply not suitable for creating such an effect, which is the case for the "Sitting Goat".

I believe the object was framed with a field of view too small - as launische Diva pointed out - to get an immediate recognition of the animals' shape.
I once took a picture with a 135mm lens of that region and I wanted to get a "closer look". However, I only have a 550mm system for longer focal lengths…
Of course I could do a mosaic, but I doubt this target would justify the effort.

As for general processing suggestions by Wei-Hao Wang (thanks!) - yes, these are indeed my standard processing steps.
I do run BXT on my images and I do create two differently stretched versions (strong stretch for DSO, moderate stretch for stars) to get smaller stars in my final image. And of course I do some unsharp masking or highpass filtering on my starless DSO.

The amount to which these processing steps are taken forward is a choice of personal taste - I like Adam Block's definition of "naturalistic" - so I tend not to overdo saturation or contrast.
I intentionally did not take luminance or Ha exposures, since the goal was to outline the shape of the goat, not to get a crisp image of the tulip nebula.
But to achieve this I realise the field of view was simply too small.


What I find particularily interesting in relation to promoting your astrophotography is the art of playing on the "social media piano" - something I am not very good at, I suppose. Being a generation advancing the 50 years barrier (fast!) I am neiter on Facebook nor Twitter. Or to put it another way - getting attention on social media does not occur naturally to me (this thread actually being a very positive exception).

To be honest, I don't get how other guys do it - and, I simply have to realise that very good social media skills can outrun any high quality astrophotography.
However, astrophotography should never be about getting attention in the first place - this is just a bonus, at best.
For me astrophotography is the joy of mastering technical skills, admiring the beauty of our universe and connecting with something greater than ourselfes - a kind of meditative practice. As humans we tend to be not satisfied with what we already have -  so we probably need a reminder once in a while that any pressure or a hunt for more "likes" is not what life is all about.

Enjoy your astrophotography, everybody!
Chris

You can always look at the most liked photos on Astrobin to get a sense of what are the most engaging photos.

Going after the "most liked" photos is not necessarily the best idea. Of the thousands (?) of AB members, what fraction actually spends time perusing and liking every image? For me, other than the people I follow, it usually ends up just being an image I happen to catch by chance when I am on the webpage. I suspect a significant number of the "most liked" photos are simply from people who've taken the time and effort to cultivate a following. Not that there is anything wrong with it - there is a social aspect to this hobby, making a number of friends and getting affirmation online, that is a very valid pursuit.