Hi!I think that my standard is a bit lower than yours. Nebula would mean Ha - correct? I haven't gone down that route and probably won't although the technical challenge. Getting viewers to appreciate adding Ha to a picture seems to be a step too far for them as they don't know what it is and definitely can't see it with the naked eye.
For colours, there seems to be controversy about what would be the "correct" white balance. Seems to be a personal preference with some too purple for me for instance.
PTGui is great but sometimes I can't get it to stitch properly - even when adding control points and need to do a lot of work in post to get it looking okay. Simple is good for me
In short: I nearly completely agree!
Nebula: I'm not doing Ha yet and I will not do it for 'landscape at night' as it is looking too artificial to me. The modern sensors are already more sensitive in Ha than the human eye and that is enough for my taste. Normal 'daylight' images are also done in natural colors, just a little bit tweaked and that's how I do it with night images: Color temperature is usually around 5000 K and than you have to tweak and stretch as you like. Ha for deep-sky is a different story as that is not a 'natural' image, but instead you try to show with any suitable method the structures of the night sky.
There is an absolutely overkill of these kitsch night images with a red Ha sky plus the typical brainless flashlight-guy.
PTGui: Mmmmh? I have hardy had ever problems with that software. I'm using a pano-head, so when auto-stitching fails I'm using 'align to grid' where I only have to guess the 'roll' and 'pitch' angles. But even with my 'three-camera-pano-rail' which will always have a parallax error, I hardly ever have such problems.
Upvote
0
