NGC896/IC1795 High & Low Stretch Versions

[galacticphoto]

All:

I just pulled out some data from a photo that I took in November, but never processed. I put together two versions, one low stretch, the other high stretch. I'd like to get opinions as to how the two versions look on different monitors. Which one looks better to you, why?

The web page containing the images (3rd & 4th from top):
http://www.galacticphotography.com/a..._photos_6.html

Thanks,
Robert

[budguinn]

Hi Robert,

Nice shots...I like the streeeeetched version.....it brings out the faint outer nebulosity...which is there, and doesn't leave the background to dark.
btw, the IC410 shot is really slick, also

[galacticphoto]

Appreciate the comments Bud, I made the high stretch version first, but then had second thoughts about the noise level.

It seems that the image would really need 16hrs, or more, of exposure for that amount of stretch, so I reprocessed at a lower stretch, which kept the apparent noise and stars better in check, but, of course gives up the fainter portions of IC1805 around IC1795.

Let's see if anyone else has an opinion.

Robert

[Gary Beal]

Stretched for me too. Like Bud said, more nebulosity, and in the quick peek I had, not objectionable amounts of noise. I like to see them together, and find flipping one to the other allows the brain to accept differences that may be more noticeable as a single image.

[galacticphoto]

Appreciate the comments Gary. I guess I'll go with the dusty version on the website.

Robert