I captured this image some time ago, but I recently re-processed it with Pixinsight and it came out better. Taken with an Orion 8" R-C scope and an QHY-8 one-shot color CCD camera. This is a stack of 66 subexposures of 6 minutes captured over two nights.
Thanks Mark. Actually the image shown here is sharper and more contrasty than it was on my computer. I don't know why that happened, but I'm not sure I like it as well. I didn't do anything but resize my TIFF file and then save it as a JPEG to fit the image upload requirements - and, at least on my computer, the file did not gain sharpness or contract that I can detect here at home. 'Tis a mystery...
Great image! Where an image looks different in a browser, usually the color profile is to blame. You very likely processed in Adobe RGB or some other color profile other than sRGB. All or most browsers only support sRGB.
You are right that I normally process in Photoshop in the Adobe RGB color space, but I *think* I converted to sRGB when I saved the smaller file. I will have to boot up my main computer and check what I did. Thanks for mentioning this point. Always learning...
I uploaded the wrong image. The one here is one I had processes somewhat differently but the names of the two files were so similar I picked the wrong one to upload. Oh well... Another senior moment. I like this one, but I think I over-processed it a bit and it looks a bit artificial to me. Live and learn. The file I intended to show isn't quite as artificial and harsh looking (to me) - just a bit softer.
Sorry I didn't get back sooner, but I had some medical issues that consumed a lot of time over the past two weeks.
Thanks you for asking about the other image. I didn't upload it before because I didn't want to crowd the bandwidth with another image of the same object. But, since you asked, it is attached below. To me, it looks less processed and more "natural" (if that can be applied to an image of an object that we really can't see in this kind of detail without special image techniques). I guess it comes down to creating an image that satisfies our notion of what it may (or should?) look like.
You are definitely right that the Trapezium shows better in the first image, although even there the multiple stars are blended into a single bright object. If I really understood how to use Pixinsight I could probably have had it show better in the second image too - but I'm a novice with the software and understand only a small fraction of what it can do or how to do it; and there is no manual, only a few tutorials spread around. Now that you mentioned the Trapezium, I may have to go back and try processing the image again to see if I can get the "best of both worlds."