I share your well expressed thoughts. CS -Jim

Thanks, Jim. The universe is nothing if not an aesthete's playground.

Hi Alex,
I have to admit, that I was irritated by the colors first, then reading your thoughts and I there is a lot of truth in it. We try very often to copy the colors from images we know and admire.
Why not leaving the well know trails, and try something new? In the end it is only a matter of personal taste in the eye of the beholder. 
CS
Rüdiger

Thanks much Rudiger. Totally agree with you. I have been experimenting with various ways to abstract images for about half a year now. In all cases, I start from a fully processed image...one that toes the line of traditional processing, as best I can do that. Then the fun begins. Not likening myself to the inventive masters of art, but it is an observation that the vast majority of them can draw a human, or a bird, or a whale in exquisite reality before they ever ventured into the "Starry Night" or "Guernica". So, I feel that get a good traditional rendering first makes the chances of a good abstraction improve. Thanks again.

All the images we present here, are interpretations of (basically ugly) raw data we gather. 
With the very first step of processing we leave science behind and start interpreting and add more and more personal taste. To claim to visualise the truth is an illusion. I consider this to be very important when ever enjoying an image. We leave science and enter art, otherwise we would have to share fits files.

Very true! I've often privately taken issue with Juan Conejero's insistence that images be somehow pure and unmanipulated when, as you say, every action we take on raw images does just that, namely manipulates their data content. That includes nonlinear (read arbitrary) stretching, but even goes back to using various weighting criteria for stacking. The sullying of the data never ends.

Very nice Alex and original. You cannot fool the astrometry from Pixinsight and Astrobin. I wonder what would it take for an artificial intelligence not to recognize this as a nebula and a star field. I agree with you, what is real in what we do is a rich starting point for a philosophical discussion about how the Universe actually looks. I have been thinking about it for a while and thought of opening a thread in the forum. False colors exist in biology also but that doesn't mean it does not reveal a real aspect of the object. Actually, much of this talk doesn't make sense, because we cannot talk about how we can actually see microscopic or big scale astronomical objects (we always need an instrument that will causally interfere with the final image that hits our retina). And I like your classical image of this object too. Clear skies !

Insightful comments and a perspective we largely share. Thanks so much for taking the time and thought to present such a clear and important dialog.

A beautiful and original interpretation, Alex. Future fine-art astrophotographers will refer to this as the Woronow Style. I like it.
CS, Gary

Thanks, Gary. I'm still experimenting. It's fun beyond the rut!

As a newcomer to AP with only a few months under my belt, I think your comments bear serious consideration. We (newcomers) tend to look at the images of others and model ours after those other models (much as artists are trained to do). My own frustration comes often comes out of not knowing what's (relatively) "real" and what is imagined in the work of others. I think for me, while I agree with your philosophy, I'm too new to artistically experiment on my own. I need to "master brushstrokes and pigments" before setting out on my own creative expression of the universe. I *want* to faithfully render what the universe has brought to my camera so I can then do precisely as you have done whenever and wherever. I believe you have to first try and grab reality before you realize it's all a dream.  Thank you for your image and your thoughts!

Clear Skies,
Daniel

I know where you.re coming from. I think that building the ability to produce "realistic" images (whatever that means) first develops the skills for further experimentation. When learning astro-image processing, I'd suggest, if you are going to us PI, compare your outcomes to other PI-processed results. If you use PS, do likewise. Seems that what one group considers essential technique, the other often abhors. Neither has the market on 'correct'.  Good luck!

Thank you. I'm walking to path... Realizing that I sometimes overanalyze things, I just have to ask--as a complete neophyte, you understand--is there really a divide between PI and PS users and their processing? Without opening up a can of worms, I'd really love to hear more. It would inform me. :-)

My opinion: Given some problem with colors or stars, PS users are quicker to paint-away the problem and PI users are more likely to find some convoluted PixelMath solution. That's just an example of the different approaches spawned from the fact that PS is a general image/artistic tool and PI is a specific astroImage/tech tool.

Got it. Thanks!

Fantastic!

Fantasy it is. Thanks!

Very beautiful image Alex!  I agree with your thoughts expressed in the narrative.  And I think the vast majority of folks appreciate your interpretations of these beautiful celestial subjects.

CS and be well my friend,
Mike

Thanks, my friend. I've been very pleasantly surprised by the positive response to the image and my (obviously shared) interpretation of the "truth" behind our image processing. I am encouraged by our community of processors to try other new things too. Life is good.