Re: [APML] Milky Way in Sagittarius

["Brian Larmay" <astrobri@ameritech.net>]

Hi Nicola


> Hi Brian,
>
> thanks for your hints. I'm actually using PS 5 to do all the job so the
> links you gave me were very interesting.
> For what concerns the slight magenta shift, I made it on purpose, in order
> to have a different view of the same zone you can get from other
> astrophotographers. In particular, I find very interesting to use the dark
> magenta for the external faint part of the Milky Way meanwhile having a
> better balance in the central dense parts of it.
> Do you think I'm not reducing correctly the image?

If you mean colour balancing, my honest opinion is your using too much
magenta....but thats my own opinion.
Depnding on the Image, I usually set my auto levels to 25,35,45 or 15,
25,35, in the rgb values, but most of the time I try just to mess with each
colour channel individually to bring out all the aspects and to even the
colours out.
Another thought is we might not be seeing the same picture in respect to
your monitor settings.

> What I normally do is working with TIFF (as you tell me) and than resizing
> changing the original resolution from 300dpi to 72dpi (the one for
> monitors).
> After that, I save the image as JPEG with Image quality set to 5. I do
this
> in order to have a small filesize. Looking at my monitor I can't see a big
> loss in detail, but perhaps I'm wrong, can you tell me your setup or what
> you'd suggest me?

Do you just not have enough room on your comp to work with large images, or
is it that your webhoster doesnt give you alot of space to deal with.

On this end I see alot of information lost and the image gets blocky from
the 72dpi, and from saving at 5.

I used to use 7 to save but from a not too long ago conversation here, I
switched to 10-or 11 as my save.
I always scan at 2700 dpi to get the most information from a slide and then
work with the image in PS at that resolution.
When I am done editing, I chage the image size usually from 3626 x 2417 to
1000 x 667, but I still keep the same resolution.

At the end of my editing, just as I am about to save as jpeg, I magnify the
image to 200% and toggle the save option at 10 or 11 and look at how much
the image is being degraded. I then decide which level I will save at.
Since I do mostly widefield and since there is soo much information on the
image, I save at 11 mostly.
But then my files are a litle longer to download....this is personal
preferance.
I woud rather have a good quality image online that is large rather then a
picture that is just ok.
Sometimes an occasional person comes along and asks to purchase, or use my
pictures in an online ezine just because you made the decision to have a
quality picture on the net, or they just commend you for your work which is
fine with me.
O.. by the way...if they use them on an ezine, dont let them re-edit your
images.
Heres an example: http://www.fermatainc.com/tripdujour/nature.html
As you can see, they greatly exagerated what is visible to the naked eye.

I hope this somewhat helps.

If anyone sees  my method as not efficiant plz let me know.


> thanks a lot for your hint!
> Nicola
>
> http://astrofoto.laza.it


My Photography
Nature: http://www.astrobri.com/nature_photography.htm
Astrophotography: http://www.astrobri.com/astrophotography_ind.htm
Storm chasing photography:
http://www.astrobri.com/weather_pictures_2002_season.htm
Northern Lights: http://www.astrobri.com/northern_lights.htm
Miscellaneous: http://www.astrobri.com/miscellaneous.htm


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/03

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo