Astrophotography Color Balance Showdown: Most Prominent vs. Least Prominent Channel 🌠🔍

🌌 Welcome back to Hidden Light Photography! 🌌

Ever wondered why I prefer using the most prominent color channel for balance in astrophotography? In this video, I answer a fellow viewer's question by comparing images balanced with the most prominent and least prominent color channels. You'll see the differences firsthand and learn how I correct during stretching. Plus, I'll share a bonus tip on using linear fit when SPCC doesn't give ideal results and discuss the if there are any noise differences between the two methods. Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more astrophotography tips and tutorials! 🌌✨

👍 Like this video if you found it helpful!
💬 Comment below with your questions and suggestions!

Want to view my PixInsight Workflow videos? Check out the links below:

Simple Workflow:

Next Level Workflow:

Want to view my entire Pixinsight series? Check out the link below

For my entire video index, check out my website below:

00:00 Introduction
01:14 Getting the Playing Field Ready
3:17 Building the Most Prominent
06:20 Building the Least Prominent
09:21 The comparison
11:56 Why Use Linear Fit if SPCC Undoes Linear Fit?
16:12 Is Noise Affected between the Methods?

#Astrophotography #ColorBalance #PhotographyTips #HiddenLightPhotography

[ridetheliger]

Very good video! I use SPCC to get nicer stars and linear fit for the nebula, when using dual narrowband. I will try linear fit with the stronger channel.

[yervantparnagian]

Hey Tony. Really good video my friend. I was thinking to myself that it really doesn't matter what channel we select because we change it anyway when we do our stretches. I agree that the image on the right looks more interesting because there's more difference in the coloring. If a person is not looking for realism, then whatever interpretation they want to make it is their choice. I tend to fall on each side, realism and art, depending on what I'm working on. Btw, my AT115mm triplet refractor got delivered yesterday. Now just need clear skies. Keep up the good work!

[Phil]

Wow, thank you very much!

Super interesting video answer!
Yes, indeed, there seems to be very little difference between one method and the other. Great this way, I would say!

In the last example, at first glance, there seemed to be more luminance noise on the left image and more chrominance noise on the right image. But upon closer observation I assume it is merely due to youtube compression....

By chance, again regarding the last example, had you measured the SNR? Because yes, to the eye they are really identical but, as a lover of numbers, it would be curious to know if on a statistical level anything changes.


Anyway, yes, I also agree after this video that it is quite indifferent which image is used as a reference.


Thank you very much and congratulations again for the video!

[AstroIsland]

Great video with very valuable information. There’s also Auto Linear Fit (Script > Toolbox) that contains those same options (lowest mean, highest mean, etc) so you don’t need to split and rejoin the channels. Or was it done in the video for demonstration purposes?

[setiv]

You dont need to linear fit if you choose to do an unlinked stretch in my Statistical Stretch either. I agree a lot of nebula look better in an unlinked or linear fit mode vs SPCC. Visually more going on than "true" colors with SPCC

[curtisroos]

When you balance to the highest mean, isn’t there a potential to clip some of the bright data (e.g. the red channel of your example).