Hi Wade
It appears version 1 has won the most votes with a few in between. Is this because it is better or we're just more familiar with seeing it this way?
I think that the reason is the second you menctioned. Avoiding for a little while the matter of wich one is the best, I think that any time we see something different, we tend to dislike it at first sight. Now, in astrophotography, images are so basically processed, that they tend to be all similar-like. Only advanced imagers/astrophotographer are able give theyr own print to the target, and make it unique. We may like them or not, but it is different, and that creates an impact over us.
Now, in my opinion, we must push the data to its limits. Film photography has not been better the later years becouse of better emulsions... it was the digital processing that made the change. It is not a secret that it has been possible to achieve similar or better results with smaller telescopes, and that wide field has gone deeper than ever. So, in you case, you should not be happy with just the first image. It is too typical, too familiar, and has a lot in it to explote. As Vicent said, you should go a bit further, and put more effort in working the middle and large scales. Make the nebulaes use a larger dynamic range, with better contrast as result. Also it would look less "opaque".
It amazes me just how much more detail a CCD records over film. I believe over time, we will all get more familiar with the later version as we take our new medium to its limits as we did with film in the past.
True. But, keep in mind the even film was not pushed to its limits. Anyway, CCD returns better raw data, and is far easier to accumulate more time/shots. Also is easier to combine to perform high dynamic range images... There is more freedom to explore.
I enjoy all the images posted on this site. Even though we all take the same targets, they all turn out different. It's these differences that make our hobby so fulfilling.
Yes. And you remember me of Richard Crips, how said in APML that he was bored becouse everything looked the same, so he wante to explore new methods to capture data. It is true, processing tends to be done in the same way, but this is our fault, becouse a) we don't push the data to it's limits, in all senses, b) we are more confortable with familiar lookings, or we follow a scheme "impossed" by the "masters" c) people is so obsesed with color calibration and "scientific looks" that they forget that this is an art form, and there are so many possibilities that are unexplored.
IMHO, we should not aim our processing to achieve a "real looking" image. Instead, we must work it to produce an impact on the people, and communicate the beuty of the universe. We must take advantage of the new tools, and play with the data, with the only restriction to be honest.
