3 ms·
Surprisingly little real information in this article. It could be summed up as "use noise reduction, tone curves, and local contrast" without need for further w
by ratmeadow 1y ago
Surprisingly little real information in this article. It could be summed up as "use noise reduction, tone curves, and local contrast" without need for further waffle. Smells a bit like blog spam.
What I would've found helpful would be a discussion of proper exposure for astrophotography, which oddly enough was missing. If your exposure is screwed then your edits will be screwed too. They mention pulling back the star highlights and boosting darker areas, well it would be interesting to hear the author's opinions on the optimal exposure settings to enable those edits without excessive noise or clipping.
Also my pet peeve, getting colour science technicalities wrong. "RAW files are dull" no RAW files are simply not viewable as-is and any attempt to display them without proper tone mapping is pointless. "Linear image" - what does this even mean? No respect for the colour pipeline :(
- karlperera 1y agoYou are completely right mcdeltat. The problem with writing content is that without feedback it is easy to forget or miss something, even if it appears to be very obvious to you sometimes it is just too easy to miss. A webpage needs to be constantly updated. I am very happy with your comments and will use them to update and improve the page. On the website as a whole I have all the things you talk about including an exposure calculator: https://astroimagery.com/techniques/imaging/astrophotography-calculator-for-long-exposures/ https://astroimagery.com/techniques/imaging/astrophotography... Of course, it is not perfect. Nothing can be but it is a good starting point and I tried to base it on real experience and some research. The wrong words yes for RAW files: they appear black and lifeless but contain a rich amount of detail which requires stretching and the rest.