Karl Perera

Lots of ways to remove gradient that are quick and easy including: In Photshop, click Filter then Blur select Average. Apply image and subtract from the current image layer. Use RC-astro gradient Xterminator Use astroflat pro vignetting control in camera raw filter this is all with Photoshop. Hope this is of some help.

Turkey is excellent for clear skies at most times worst in the winter obviously.

Yes we need mass education because most people are blissfully unaware of this problem...

Thanks for this! Just taken a look at the site and it is great I will be using this in addition to the app...

I find Clear outside quite helpful and reasonably accurate but I am under skies that are often clear anyway (in Turkey). I particular like the wind forecast as it is fairly windy here and I need to know when the wind is also cooperative. Go ahead and use it as a rough guide. Often there are pleasant surprises!

I did manage to image the comet a week or two ago after locating it with my telescope. I have Bortle 5 skies. Couldn't see it in small binoculars. I attached my stacked image below. I tried 30 and 60 second exposures. Be interesting to see what you got.

Wanted to have go imaging the comet the other night but just couldn't find it. I took a small pair of binoculars and looked to the North East and scanned around in my Bortle 5 sky but couldn't see anything. I checked after 1am. Why couldn't I see it? Is it too faint? Also, can we locate the comet by using its up to date RA and DEC? Then plate solve? What about tracking? I believe about 30-60 second exposures should be right... Anybody actually caught sight of it or managed to image it? How did you do it?

Hi Astrofarsography, great videos by the way! I'm wondering first where you are in the Midlands, as I know Leicester very well. To get back to the topic of this thread, I've been imaging the Jelly Fish Nebula and have collected 6 hours of integration but need more for the full details to emerge I think. I've also been getting some shots of the Cigar nebula in narrowband in between. Despite the fact I am in Turkey, the clouds are wiping out most nights now. When it is clear here though it is amazing! My plans are to finish these two targets and weather permitting, before I zap off to France to snowboard at the end of the month, I have my eye on several targets next such as M78, Thor's Helmet and the Seagull while we have the glorious Orion with us.

I'm now removing stars early on in my workflow, stretching and working on the details of the image then putting the stars back in. It's improved my images but I wonder if I am overdoing the star reduction...

We seem to have no shortage of ways to remove gradients and vignetting especially it seems that there is a button for everything in Pixsinsight. I use Photoshop and suggest a few different alternatives that I use: Remove gradients by using GadientXterminator Remove gradient by using filter - blur -average and subtract this from your image. Use AstroFlat Pro it's cheap and works nicely to flattern image and take away gradient Mask the nebula using color range and then remove colors from background Vignetting can easily be removed or adjusted by using camera raw filter adjustment for vignetting Vignetting is also taken care of in the abovementioned AstroFlat pro software Any other ideas?

This is a great case in point where amateur astronomers can get together and pool their data to make new discoveries. I think we should all be doing this more because who knows what we might find? Any thoughts?

currently I am sticking with PS and trying out StarxTerminator and NoiseXterminator as these are two problems, I'm facing these days. Need to process better, does everyone say this?

I'm trying my best doublevodka!

Food for thought!

Mmm interesting. I agree that the main problem is that to make an easy to use tool for said exposure calculations so many factors would have to be assumed as no one will be aware or take the time to figure out what all these values for their location at the time are. It strikes me that testing different times of subexposure etc. is quicker and more productive. After all theory is one thing whereas actual practical results are more important. I'll think about the colour calibration and how difficult that might be.