The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette


Glenn
 

I forgot to mention that once you have a starless image, you can import it into Photoshop and do whatever you want with it. 

Best,

Glenn


Robert Chozick
 

Thanks Glenn. I will check out the application. I’ve been lazy and not downloaded the newer version of Pixinsight.  Wouldn’t the star mask only be a gray representation of where the stars were and not the actual image of the stars themselves? 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 9:43 AM, Glenn <public@...> wrote:

I forgot to mention that once you have a starless image, you can import it into Photoshop and do whatever you want with it. 

Best,

Glenn


 

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian


Robert Chozick
 

Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian


 

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)


On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Robert Chozick
 

I agree.  I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies.   I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be.  I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian




--
Brian 



Brian Valente


 

Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!

Brian

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I agree.  I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies.   I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be.  I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian




--
Brian 



Brian Valente



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Robert Chozick
 

Are you familiar with Topaz noise reduction and sharpening?  It works wonders on some things, especially the DeNoise.  It is available standalone or as a PS plugin.

Robert

On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!

Brian

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I agree.  I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies.   I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be.  I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian




-- 
Brian 



Brian Valente





-- 
Brian 



Brian Valente


 

I am - i'm a longtime user of topaz and topaz AI. 

They can be really good, but generally for me they tend to be a bit heavy-handed, especially the denoise algorithms.

I find Topaz clarity and detail are much better for teasing out details. 

My hope is Topaz  will start their AI training on astro images, which will make their algorithms much better suited for our work.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:01 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Are you familiar with Topaz noise reduction and sharpening?  It works wonders on some things, especially the DeNoise.  It is available standalone or as a PS plugin.

Robert

On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!

Brian

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I agree.  I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies.   I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be.  I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian




-- 
Brian 



Brian Valente





-- 
Brian 



Brian Valente



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Dale Ghent
 

I've played around with Topaz. I got acceptable results by not giving it free reign. I'd make an original and a Topaz'd layer in PS and brush in the Topaz'd layer with varying levels of opacity to bring out its effects in a more subtle manner and in the places I thought it would work the best. I found it a good way to give a hint of sharpened structure to the eye without it being too overbearing as the pure Topaz'd layer would feel.

On Jul 27, 2021, at 13:57, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:

I am - i'm a longtime user of topaz and topaz AI.

They can be really good, but generally for me they tend to be a bit heavy-handed, especially the denoise algorithms.

I find Topaz clarity and detail are much better for teasing out details.

My hope is Topaz will start their AI training on astro images, which will make their algorithms much better suited for our work.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:01 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Are you familiar with Topaz noise reduction and sharpening? It works wonders on some things, especially the DeNoise. It is available standalone or as a PS plugin.

Robert

On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!

Brian

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I agree. I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies. I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be. I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Robert

For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work.
i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix

https://www.brianvalentephotography.com/astrophotography/i-NJN9nHb/A

(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures. Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily. For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian



--
Brian



Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com





--
Brian



Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com





--
Brian



Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com


Robert Chozick
 

I do the same thing. It’s sometimes works like deconvolution to help later sharpening. The DeNoise software is incredible on any images that have a lot of noise.

Robert

On Jul 27, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Dale Ghent <daleg@elemental.org> wrote:

I've played around with Topaz. I got acceptable results by not giving it free reign. I'd make an original and a Topaz'd layer in PS and brush in the Topaz'd layer with varying levels of opacity to bring out its effects in a more subtle manner and in the places I thought it would work the best. I found it a good way to give a hint of sharpened structure to the eye without it being too overbearing as the pure Topaz'd layer would feel.

On Jul 27, 2021, at 13:57, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:
I am - i'm a longtime user of topaz and topaz AI.
They can be really good, but generally for me they tend to be a bit heavy-handed, especially the denoise algorithms.
I find Topaz clarity and detail are much better for teasing out details.
My hope is Topaz will start their AI training on astro images, which will make their algorithms much better suited for our work.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:01 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Are you familiar with Topaz noise reduction and sharpening? It works wonders on some things, especially the DeNoise. It is available standalone or as a PS plugin.
Robert
On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!
Brian
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I agree. I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies. I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.
Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be. I will play with the process.
Robert
On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Robert
For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work.
i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures
Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix
https://www.brianvalentephotography.com/astrophotography/i-NJN9nHb/A
(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures. Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily. For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work.
Robert
On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:
Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution
The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv
Brian
--
Brian
Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com
--
Brian
Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com
--
Brian
Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com