Alex and Chris have both made extremely valid points.
Your image should end up the way you want it to end up, however your efforts in trying to achieve that can end up making the result very false.
The first thing that needs to be done - always - is to refrain from looking at anyone else's images - especially those from inagers who have 'made a name for themselves'. Don't do it - it is against the law
The problem is that, unless you have access to the same six-figure equipment as them, under the same inky-black skies as them, then it is highly unlikely that your normal data will ever have the basic quality required to end up looking like theirs. And that will just make you mad, becuase you invested five-figures in your kit, and you drove hundreds of miles to get it to the top of a mountain, and you spent all night trying not to let sleep overcome your feelings of hypothermia.
The good thing is that, constant practice (by which, for me personally, means perpetual failure) will leave you ready to process that fantastic data set when you get it. You will gradually learn that pushing your image any further just won't make it any prettier.
I have been imaging since around 2005, I have bought (and sold) astronomy equipment that must be well into five-figures by now, and I can count on one hand the images that I would show to others. I don't need any fingers to count how many I would consider good enough to 'publish' (even on the internet).
But, when I have pulled out a nice image from seemingly hopeless raw data, I get a warm fuzzy glow inside, that gives me confidence enough to approach Lady Saunders (my financier) to ask about the possibility of purchasing a new, different kind of, gumble-twerk for the observatory, using my latest image to justify the exponential investment that has already been made.
Skills of restraint? I think not
