x^(1/4) process was used this time. It seems to not be as aggressive with the stretch and yet gives good resolution without over exposure.
There was a bit of noise and artifacts with the first process, that I did not catch at first.
Here is the link to this procedure, I deleted the old photo and replaced it to save space.
Be sure to click on the picture shown to see the full size and resolution.
Full size and resolution
http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php?photo=290&nocache=1
Cropped version showing core better.
http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php/photo/290
This process seems more in line with Linear, yet does seem to give a better core overall than Linear.
What do you guys think about this? :S
There was a bit of noise and artifacts with the first process, that I did not catch at first.
Here is the link to this procedure, I deleted the old photo and replaced it to save space.
Be sure to click on the picture shown to see the full size and resolution.
Full size and resolution
http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php?photo=290&nocache=1
Cropped version showing core better.
http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php/photo/290
This process seems more in line with Linear, yet does seem to give a better core overall than Linear.
What do you guys think about this? :S
[SIZE="Large"][/SIZE][COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR] Floyd Blue
Amateur Imager