I have been playing around with slightly different processes of an OSC image of the Rosette Nebula, and I am interested in your comments and preferences. Which processing do you think does most justice to the object?
Combining data from a number of projects I accumulated 9 hours exposure (jobs - 1974, 2009, 1507)
I passed the data through my usual Pixinsight process - WBPP, DynamicBackgroundExtraction, BlurExterminator, SpectrophotometricColorCalibration, EZ Denoise, Starnet2 separation of stars and nebula.
The star mask I stretched with ArcsinhStretch.
The nebula I processed in two ways. First MaskedStretch, then either using GeneralizedHyperbolicStretch, focusing on enhancing the contrast on the nebula structures, or CurvesTransformation, trying to keep more of the background nebulosity/dust visible. After the stretch a small amount of LocalHistogramEqualization to bring out some of the structures. Then recombining with the stars using PixelMath and the max(star_mask, starless) function
Using the generalized hyperbolic stretch I get Rosette1.jpg. Lots of punch, but I have lost some of the outer nebulosity.
Using the curves transformation, which I have had more practice with, I get Rosette2.jpg. A softer rendition with more of the outer nebulosity and dust visible, but not so much contrast in the main nebula structure.
Well, could I combine the best of both?
Rosette3.jpg uses the max function in PixelMath to choose the brighter of the two pixels from the original images. This keeps the background nebulosity and dust, but strengthens the contrast and colour in the main nebula. Rosette4.jpg uses PixelMath to average Rosette1 and Rosette2.
Would like to hear your comments.