M51 Galaxy

For a focal length of 2060, stars are quite sufficient.

What does focal length have to do with it? There aren't enough stars in this photo. They're heavily suppressed.

I think this isn't the place to explain it. This is my processing, and it is what it is. If you don't think there are enough stars, process your own photos however you like—oh right, you don't know how, I forgot.

Are you being sarcastic? That doesn't suit you. I'm talking about star trailing, and you're bringing up the focal length to star count ratio. Oh well. Advice isn't welcome here today. Although you did listen about Orion, and it turned out much better. It would have been the same here...

There is a golden mean between star quality and their quantity. Perhaps it has not been found; I do not claim to have it. Both the quantity and quality of stars genuinely depend on the focal length, as well as the area of interest.

Can you show what stars look like when stretched (without extraction)?

I have an example to make it clear what I'm talking about:

Here's how I see your work: https://sun9-25.userapi.com/s/v1/ig2/DZS55tn18Hp7MmGWn6JJZz1iVT_O6LE2JyVBIUkJQXjYtMTdvLnwYqGfxy4H31I45c9EFnn8lEKqo-u0JZqYQ0Yk.jpg?quality=95&as=32x21,48x32,72x47,108x71,160x105,240x158,360x237,480x316,540x355,640x421,720x474,1080x710,1280x842,1440x947,2560x1684&from=bu&cs=2560x0

Here's how I would like to see it: https://sun9-36.userapi.com/s/v1/ig2/5cAnN2w90Db7C79KSFNovCcVODi1bzFpl84SjmN-brFDuNNvIDYEYN5B3zK20y1heGqfx1is75lVf7WyNA81ZfFv.jpg?quality=95&as=32x21,48x32,72x48,108x72,160x107,240x161,360x241,480x322,540x362,640x429,720x483,1080x724,1280x858,1440x965,2560x1716&from=bu&cs=2560x0

This is the same integration. The first one is just a crop. Stars without terminators or other enhancers.