Astrophotography Challenge June 2024

[Jockinireland]

I've done a slightly darker version, as I think my earlier one was a bit too bright, despite lots of you liking it,


and another with some of the stars put back. To be honest IMO I think the latest fad for reducing stars to small dots is going a bit OTT.
]

I think I prefer this second version - a little darker and more contrasty.

I somewhat agree with you about the tiny stars thing. I definitely dont care for totally starless and if they are going to be there they need to have enough of a presence to be a part of the image, they cant be totally irrelevant. But its a tough balance sometimes. In pixinsight I use the ScreenStars script (Bill Blanshan again!!) and it allows for very quick easy adjustment and trials of various methods and strengths to get what you want. I'll sometimes do 5 or 6 different versions and blink through them to decide on whats best.

But it can still be a difficult balance. I find that on imagees like widefields of galaxies, the stars need to be more pronounced to give the feel for size and distance. On widefiled dedicated to IFN I think the stars really need to be less prominent otherwise they make the IFN difficult to see and appreciate. Images like this one above are, for me anyway, more difficult because they need the stars for scale but you dont want them taking away from the detail of the nebulae.

The other thing is that when you put them in aplace like this as a thumbnail, they can look nearly starless and you only get the proper effect when opening the full image.

I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on star reduction.

[Graeme1858]

Yes, same as that. Whilst a starless image can look ethereal and quite impressive, it's still a starless image. I get best results processing the starless and the stars only separately and I just tweak down the stars intensity a tad with a curve, but not too much and I always put the stars back in for the final image.

[AstroBee]

To be honest IMO I think the latest fad for reducing stars to small dots is going a bit OTT

Guilty....

[carastro]

[starfield]

I struggle with this. I find with nebula that are tightly imbeded in rich starfields I like to dial back the stars to give things more depth. One thing I'd love to find is a way to show just the very brightest stars. I've seen shots like this that use a few well placed stars to add depth and interest to a starless image. I think the balance you want to strike always depends on the story or features you're trying to highlight.

[Graeme1858]

One thing I'd love to find is a way to show just the very brightest stars.

A gentle pull down on the the curve of the star only component will do this.

[carastro]

I find with nebula that are tightly imbeded in rich starfields I like to dial back the stars to give things more depth. One thing I'd love to find is a way to show just the very brightest stars. I've seen shots like this that use a few well placed stars to add depth and interest to a starless image.

@starfield I am experimenting with Starexterminator which I only recently acquired, and I think I have developed a routine to do this, but in Photoshop, but if I explain my method you might try adapting it to whatever software you use.

I start to stretch my image so that the bigger stars are larger than they would be if I used Starexterminator at the beginning. I then select the brightest stars and then I select inverse (everything except those stars) and use Starexterminator. It removes all the small stars and leaves the larger ones intact. If I am then going to continue stretching the image I either:
a) Flatten the image (combine stars and background).
or b) Shrink the large stars down using a method in photoshop I have but if you have some sort of "make stars smaller" option, and then continue stretching.

This seems to be working well. Maybe this might give you some ideas of things to try.

HTH

Carole