Most suitable image processing software for my needs please

[A40farinagolf]

Background info for you.

I'm a bit of a IT dinosaur who seems to have trouble with most things related to PC's.

I'm a relative novice at AP and the only astronomy software that I use is Stellarium and that took me several attempts to download it effectively.

(And I

I don't have a filter wheel and image with an unmoded EOS550 and a colour CCD ZWO ASI120MC.

I don't want to spend hour after hour at my laptop tweaking and fine adjusting image files or video files

[kalasinman]

Processing seems to be a bit of a black art. It's not uncommon for folks to spend longer processing than they did to capture the image. Gimp is a simple, but fairly capable bit. I suppose one could reason you get out of processing what you put into it.

[frugal]

I spend at least as much time processing my images as I do taking them in the first place. You can just use the default settings of the applications and accept whatever it spits out, this will give you a fair image, but it is the tweaking and tinkering with the image stacking and processing that is going to give you a Wow picture. I am currently on my 5th attempt at re-stacking and re-processing the images I took of M42 over Christmas, each attempt takes a couple of hours (hey it gives me something to do when the clouds roll in).

[steppenwolf]

I easily spend as much time processing my images as I do capturing the data in the first place. I use paid-for software for stacking (MaxIm DL) and PhotoShop for further processing, however, much of what these two programs do can be carried out by the free software, Deep Sky Stacker and The Gimp so I would make these two items your first port of call.

Please don't make the mistake of believing that post processing isn't necessary, it is!

[A40farinagolf]

All,

Thanks for your help and suggestions.

Hi Steve,

I've just received your book and I've just started reading it.

At the moment I want to achieve images that are perhaps 7/10ths of the WOW images seen in magazines and online etc. I have all the kit but no real experience.

Hopefully you don't think this is negative but due to work, family and other hobbies (golf and building a Cobra kit car) I can't justify spending hours and hours obtaining perfect images.

I want to take a series of images and then spend say 30 minutes tops to get decent results - Is this feasible?

Regards,

M

[steppenwolf]

I want to take a series of images and then spend say 30 minutes tops to get decent results - Is this feasible?

Yes, a basic image just needs stacking several subframes to produce a single image with improved signal to noise ratio followed by a quick stretch using 'Levels' in whatever image processing software you have available. This will allow you to see and recognise what you have captured for posterity. The additional time that many of us put in teases out the detail, increases and balances the colour and removes imperfections -  the other 3/10ths that make up a 'Wow' image!

I cheated, I built my car BEFORE I took up astronomy!  

[A40farinagolf]

Nice car and I'll start another thread as there must be more of us out there - astronomy and kitcar builders