Why does nobody talk about overprocessed astro photos being a turnoff

I used to pile on the saturation and sharpness on every nebula shot I took, thought it looked amazing. Then someone in my local club in Austin told me my M31 looked like a cartoon and they couldn't even see the dust lanes properly anymore. It stung at first, but I dialed everything back by 60% and now my Andromeda shots actually look natural and people comment on the detail instead of the glow. Has anyone else had an ego hit like that and actually changed their editing style for the better?

3 comments

3 Comments

wade2501mo ago

That line about looking like a cartoon hit close to home. I used to crank the saturation on Orion so high it looked like a unicorn sneezed on the sky. Then a buddy in my group straight up asked if I was editing photos or painting with neon markers. I took a step back and realized he was right, my stars looked like glowing M&Ms. Now I just cut the vibrance slider in half and call it a day. Way less work, way less embarrassment when someone zooms in.

ward.kim1mo ago

So @wade250, did you totally scrap the selective color edits too or just tone down the global saturation? I still mess with individual channel curves on nebulae but keep the stars mostly natural. Found that targeting just the Ha and Oiii regions gives them enough pop without ruining the whole frame.

jamieb801mo ago

Man I heard somewhere that the whole "overcooking the saturation" thing is actually a sign you're compensating for bad data. Like if your sub exposures are noisy or your stacking was off, you start slapping on neon colors to make it look more impressive. Read that on a Cloudy Nights thread a few months back and it STUCK with me. Now every time I feel the urge to push the saturation past 30, I go back and check my calibration frames instead. That "unicorn sneezed on the sky" bit is GOLD by the way. Might steal that for my next clear night session when someone asks why my stars look boring.