It turns out that I had not burnt in the planets in the June 20
"triangle" formation, as I had thought. I did that for the June 21
picture, but not for the 20th. So why the heck was Jupiter coming out
almost as big and bright as Venus? I tried to get the planets
displaying their size and brightness with reasonable accuracy. It
wasn't easy. I had to turn off all sharpening, "clarity" (local
contrast), and believe it or not, noise reduction. Only then did the web
JPGs turn out as the image looked on the screen in Capture One. And then
I had to mask and re-sharpen the moon a bit.
Here's the result:
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/temp/P6200521+_7_+.jpg.html>
Here's the original processing:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563@N04/18391108174/in/dateposted-public/>
Lesson learned: Digital image editing is like quantum mechanics. When
things get small enough, really weird stuff starts to happen. :-)
--Peter
Previously, I sez:
There is another phenomenon known by the archaic term "dodging,"
now known as brightening with masks. I must confess to doing it. I was
trying to preserve some texture in the moon, and when I did, Jupiter
became so dim that it could hardly be seen in the photo. When you have
teeny objects of such diverse brighness, defined by only a few pixels
each, it is difficult to get them all looking like they looked to the
eye in a single exposure. Sorry if I overdid it. Jupiter actually
appeared a little smaller and quite a bit dimmer than Venus.
In this view:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563@N04/18425870393/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/>
I got the relationship between the two planets better, at the
expense of grossly overexposing the moon. We won't even talk about the
trees, but I kinda like the way this turned out, like a charcoal
drawing. Even if it's Banding City. :-)
This one, taken the next night, shows the relationship better, but
Jupiter is still a bit brighter than in reality. The planets are
resolving to one, two or three pixels
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563@N04/19040978812/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/>
Here's the above image with the "dodging" removed, and no
sharpening. The moon is still burnt in a bit. Even here, the
difference between Venus and Jupiter is less than on the screen in the
raw converter--Jupiter is too bright. And the planets look a little
mishapen, because there aren't enough pixels in the reduced web JPGs
to define the shape accurately. The sharpening evidently rounded their
rendition.
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/temp/P6210544+_2_+.jpg.html>
I dunno how the big-time astrophotographers do it. My object was
to make a purty picture, rather than scientific accuracy, and I did
the best I could.
--Peter
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
