I just duplicate the background layer, gaussian blur 3px then 9px, set to lighten and then mask any areas I want to be sharper or more detailed e.g. foreground. This creates nice glowy stars with little coma and eliminates noise in one go.

Tedious work, but corrects the coma issue on my corners due to my lens being a rokinon 14mm. I find this especially useful since I am indeed a perfectionist held back by the limitations of my gear. removing coma is not cheating, it basically sharpening.

There is a much faster way to fix coma in Photoshop: Duplicate the layer and scale it down very slightly around the center. You need to experiment here with how much to scale, but for me 99.8% works pretty well. Then change the blending mode of the second layer to "Darker Color".

Only 17 trillion stars to go.......brb

@KyrosX27

6 жыл бұрын

I'm replying to you; it's been 8 months. Are you done yet?

@AntPDC

4 жыл бұрын

@@KyrosX27 Probably not...

Hello. Thanks for the great video. It is taking my MW pictures to the next level. I use lightroom for my normal processing. What format should I save in; photoshop raw? Thank you

Awesome tip thanks!!

Great tutorial for a photo shop newbie like me. Thank you!

Awesome. Thanks very much!

Wow! Thats a nice tip.

I know this is an older video but I just wanted to say that the coma removal brush works great. Thank you! I just wish I had seen this video years ago! Better late than never, I guess. 🙄😄

Hi, I need to create astigmatism effects (each light should generate a 16 rays star) on a photo of a decoder display, so that you see the rays and you are unable to read the numbers. My photocamera is capable up to f/11 shots, not f/22. What to do? I need this edited photo for an oftalmologist. thanks.

Creating this coma correction brush also works in Photoshop Elements.

What song is this starting at 6:30 ?

I think this makes it less a photograph and more a digital painting... which is ok.

Borderline butchery, sorry. I'd crop heavenly or stop down and stack before doing that. Get rid of the junk glass is the best solution, Rokinons are cheap, even if you have to send back three to get an acceptable one, you'd be much better off

@tinyfilms

3 жыл бұрын

I stopped after 4 bad copies of the 24mm Samyang. I must have owned and shed a dozen Samyangs...I think the crappy packaging and shipping in UPS abuse trucks are partially to blame.

@dawgrules1

3 жыл бұрын

@@tinyfilms Beyond all the hype is the proven fact that at least one reason they (Samyang) are less expense is the fact that their quality control is non-existent. If you get a truly decent one that's not de-centered, it's by pure luck, I doubt shipping has much if anything to do with it , meaning I put more trust in UPS than Samyang QC.

@reelfeedback1834

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, but two were received with NO BOX other than manufacturers box. That cannot help! Now maybe i will learn to disassemble and columnate one Ha ha.

It's not a very honest technique :/

@jacobysuh

8 жыл бұрын

+Joshua Mcateer Sure, but where does that "honestly" line lie? Is enhancing colors of the galactic center also dishonest? Or what about stacking two different exposures? In my mind, it's just reducing the the area around the star that was already captured, so eh, it's fine. It's not like he's directly just painting in new stars everywhere.

@joshhyyym

8 жыл бұрын

Reducing noise by stacking is about as honest as you can get with processing techniques. And the colours are pretty arbitrary, so most people wouldn't argue with that, you're just changing the saturation. The fixes for chromatic aberration are also pretty honest, as they just line up the colours back to where they would be in an idea situation. This technique doesn't. It doesn't attempt to reverse the process which creates the distortion (it *is* possible to remove coma in post by deconvolving the psf with the image, but that's hard and awkward). It's just painting out the stars. On top of that, if you look at the image in the example video the effect - grossly - is just to reduce the brightness of the brightest stars, which changes the whole look and feel of the image. Instead of the beautiful variety magnitudes they are all homogenized. You are, of course, welcome to disagree with me, but I don't like it.

@TheOnkarj

6 жыл бұрын

Using photoshop is also not very honest

@tastemysaucer

6 жыл бұрын

Go back and look how people "photoshopped" in the darkroom. As long as you don't paste birds into landscape shots I'm good. Photography is an art form.

This is crazy, if you are really so concerned about coma just buy a better lens or use a longer focal and do a panorama, it's still way faster than do this manually.

@thorstenwestheiderphotogra7722

5 жыл бұрын

My thought exactly. I wouldn't even consider this a technique.

@AntPDC

4 жыл бұрын

@@thorstenwestheiderphotogra7722 Nor I. And at any rate, this is not astronomy by any stretch. It's for pixel peepers.