Rodd

I tried sky flats. Terrible. They work well with fsq but not c11. Maybe I need a diffuser

I am into planetary and lunar. But an exoplanet? Not so much. It is interesting, but I like imaging the m42s of the galaxy. The image of an exoplanet, or graph more likely, would not be too impressive above the mantle

I don't think so. The panel forms a tight seal with the tube. Could be internal reflection-but it doesn t seem to be that--dust particles are not being canceled out--but there is no streaking or flares that would suggest a light leak

Not really possible to put it far away. It is designed to sit on top of the tube. I don't have a an observatory wall to hand it on. Besides, then I would need a panel 3x the size.

I am getting so tired of flats not working. Yes, dust specks can move between the light frames and the flat frames invalidating the flats....but every time? This is getting tiresome. I have tried flats with the histogram about1/4, 1'3 and 1/2 and none work--there is ALWAYS dust motes or partial dust motes that remain. Why? I use 50-100 flats ranging from .5 sec to 2 sec. So far the .5 sec ones work the best. But others say its best to use 2-10 sec. I use flat darks of the same temp and duration as my flats. What is the secret? I am not referring to false IFN cloud like blemishes. I think they are from hazy sky (high clouds, poor transparency. Its the dust specs that are infuriating. How can they move EVERY time? I shoot flats immediately after collecting lights. I don't know what else to do This is NGC 5905 and 5908--only the red and green channels. It is an RGG image. The FWHM of the green stack is 1.6. I used all 161 subs. A very consistent night. Guiding errors remained .39-.42" But the green flats did not work. I had to do a lot of work to clean this image up. I made it to see if I could salvage the data--or if I had to throw it out. Imagine throwing out 5.3 hours of subs with FWHM of 1.8. Its rare that seeing for me allows this. The red stack has a FWHM of 2.6--and I was lucky to achieve this...it was a blustery night and I threw out 50% of the data. Though far from a good background, based on this image, I think I will keep the green and proceed with blue then Lum. But I am really getting fed up with flats. I was lucky that none of the dust motes were in the galaxies. I use a Flatman panel. Histogram levels are 1/4-1/2. I use flat darks of same temp and duration. What could it be? C11 Edge with .7x reducer and ASI 1600 red: 158 120 sec; Green: 161 120 sec. About 11 hours Here's with a bit more red. Cant decode which is better

Last night I was pulling down fwhm of 1.6. My best. What you say is true. Not much to do about seeing. That is why I am looking by to remote operations

It’s amazing. Really. Binned 2x2 With the .7x reducer and the asi 1600, it has about the same pixel scale and the same focal ratio as the TOA 130. In fact the c11 is F7 and the TOA is F 7.7. So the extra aperture translates to speed. I haven’t found the TOAs sweet spot yet. The fsq 106 is great gif nebulae and large targets. The TOA is in no man’s land, sort of.

I have 3 refractors. I use the C11 Edge for galaxies and PNs. When the nebulae come around again I will switch to the fsq or TOA. Galaxies need aperture. I like the resolution and fine details

Like last night. A big waste. It was supposed to be clear but it never cleared up. I have never used the wbpp for anything but calibration. What do you mean by soft edge?

Now you guys got me liking the upside down view.!

I don't follow 100% These two mono images are from where? AHH I see the label--one is mine--processed by you. I guess it is me after all--they look almost identical. Not bad data I guess. Sky is a bit bright. Thanks for the input. I am slowly pulling myself out of the hole. I was sucked in to quicksand!

I think I shot color in poor transparency. But it was clear and no Moon, so I said what the heck. I can't afford to miss clear nights. I like your image (perhaps a tad red? That's what mine looked like and I reduced it (see my last post). But I might be wrong. This galaxy is a slippery one

But I botched the red point. I think this is better and the version I will sit on for a time. Though I see wim produced a red one as well.

Well--I had a go at reprocessing (for the umpteenth time). Thanks to you, I think the image is improved. The background is fairly consistent, though the values are a tad high. I think the darkest area is .06--which is just about right. I wanted tp ere a bit high this time. I have maintained the inner details and spiral arm structure--in fact I think its improved. But the image STILL looks nothing like yours--both from a faint extension perspective, as well as an overall look. Its hard to explain, but your image looks like a huge galaxy at some distance, while mine looks closer with a smaller scale. The details on yours look like they are really small way far away, and the details on mine look like they are much closer. Kind of like yours looks like a 100,000 light year galaxy, and line looks like a 10 foot model of a galaxy. Maybe I have been looking at the screen too long. Anyway--I think the consensus would be that the image is improved. Sop thank you. You may have salvaged my career from the refuse pile--or at least bought me some time. I am again looking forward to tonight....at least until I look at this image in the morning, at which time I may be headed for the land fill again!

My flat panel works pretty well (it seems). The only problem is Ha--which can require 20 sec flats (or longer). But I rarely have trouble with Ha. I use 100 flats per master flat, so even very short ones tend to make very noise free master flats. I have read some people think short flats are better and some think longer flats are better. I looked at the master stacks for this image under boosted STF stretch in linear state and don't see the bunnies that were pointed out.

With the C11 I pick up all the dust bunnies. With the FSQ I get none. Strange. Must be focal length related. With FSQ its all illumination correction as you say. With longer focal lengths, I can't do without flats--no way. Dust bunnies ruin images. I always use them. But they are a PITA. My histogram for flats is exactly at 1/3, I have tried 1/4, 2/3...you name it. Still, they miss things.

Thanks-its still frustrating. If I got more clear nights it wouldn't matter. But when I lose 4 hours of data because the flats fail, that means weeks of extra time. Spending a month making an image that is.......mediocre is trying. That is why I need to know how much is my processing and how much is the sky/equipment. One can be fixed, the other can't. My goal with the image was pulling out details in the galaxy, which I think I did fairly well. But my image looks nothing like most others--and I overstretched at first too trying to pull out faint stuff. One of my tenants is to not push the data past what it can support. For example--noise control is not necessary if one stretches only up to the noise threshold. In poor sky, or with little data, this makes for a very dim image. But I like the concept and it makes me not stretch beyond what the background can support. That is why my images are dark--I just can't stand a mottled, salt and pepper, or irregular backgrounds. It doesn't help that my processing computer looks totally different than other screens--even itself when viewing on a forum. When in PI, my background looks ok--but posted, it looks washed out and too bright--so I drop the black point. In my image, some spots are too dark, but many are not--its irregular. That is the quality of my sky. I am getting tired of it.

Not sure what can be done here. I hate flats. I use a flat panel and flats very rarely are perfect. I shoot flats every night and if I change filters in a night, I shoot flats for every filter right after use, and still, they don't work much of the time. I do this because If I don't, flats will NOT work. This is a long story and this forum is replete with my angst over flats not working due to dust particles moving night to night, or the filter wheel not aligning perfectly night to night (2 different cameras). Flat brightness is good, flats look perfect. So not much can be done about this. I did not see the motes you point out-which stack are they in? Not only do I have light pollution, but transparency is often poor due to haze, moisture (whatever impairs transparency). I think this is the source of the background "fog" in the image. It might not be gradients, per se, that is why DBE doesn't work so well (I have tried dozens of times using multiple iterations). DBE in PI is considered a very good background extraction tool. Even anti-PI-ers use it. I disagree about there not being much background. It doesn't look like there is, but much of that is the foggy aspect of the background--which is not faint extensions. But I will say, it was very hard to compare due to your unusual orientation. I downloaded your image and re-oriented it to match the original. You DID manage to pull out faint extensions where they exist, but the background looks so hazy. The odd thing is the numbers are not that high . In PI they are .08-.09, which is just a bit high. I try for .05-.07. The strange thing is, even at .01 or .02, the fog remains, and the background is grainy--even with near 30 hours of data. Bottom line is, it doesn't look like space, for what ever reason. That is why my level of stretch is not as much as yours-because the background can't support it. But if I waited for perfect nights, I would never finish an image. This is why i am frustrated and ready to pack it in. I just get [removed word] off all the time--not having fun. And as George at Astro-Physics says--"as long as your having fun"....I'm not. Yes the data should be binned 3, but I have mixed feelings about binning. First off, the FWHM of this data is about 2.2-2.4". It is hard for me to believe that seeing at my location is better than this (its ALWAYS recorded as poor with some sporadic nights being average. I use the C11 to shoot galaxies for the scale--to get close in. Bin 2 still allows a full resolution zoom--though smaller than bin 1. Bin 3 does not. If I always have to bin 3 or higher, then I might as well not be imaging at this focal length at all. It means my sky just can't handle it. But I must beg off now--I am getting aggravated. Except for the orientation (strange choice!) your galaxy looks very nice. The background is another story. If you can find a way to produce the galaxy with a "normal" background:, its would be a winner. I did not like your galaxy on my phone--but on the computer I see its merits. That is another aspect of this hobby (obsession) that I absolutely hate--images look different on every screen. Well--my images. Good images look good on all screens. Mine never do. My judgement, based on your image, is that both my processing AND my sky suck. I am afraid the train is still hurtling toward either a LONG hiatus, or the end of the line (at high speed). Thanks for your input.

I use to post data sets in the summer for those folks in sub polar climates to give them something to process in the twilit weeks of the midnight sun. I had envisioned a reciprocity of sharing, which would have help during times of poor weather. Regretfully, that eventuality did not come to pass. I offer this data now for a much more important reason. I have grown tired of beating my head against an iron door, and I have reached a point where I must decide if this hobby is for me. I am tired of collecting 25-30 hours (or more) of data over weeks of time, then spending untold hours processing and reprocessing, only to be thoroughly dissatisfied with the results. I like to blame the sky, but perhaps the real reason my images are inferior is because of a lack of processing ability. Perhaps its both. Even when I think the sessions have gone well, and the stacks look good, the resulting image leaves me frustrated. The best way I can think of determining if the problem lies with me or the data, is for accomplished imagers to process the data. I realize judging images is in large part based on personal preference, so this is not meant to be a contest. There are no rules at all other than to process the data and post it here. After that, you may do with it what you wish. Opinions, theories, tips, etc., of course, are welcome. This will help me with my decision. I have to make a serious change, either sell everything and get out, or sell most things and purchase a remote spot at a remote hosting facility with what remains. A third option would be to forgo 30 hour data sets for 5 hour data sets, and process images in a catalogue type way-but I would have a hard time with this approach. There is no question the sky impacts the quality of my images. But that is true for everyone that does not shoot from Bortle 1/2. The question is, can processing acumen make up for the sky conditions to enough of an extent for me to once again find pleasure in this endeavor. Many of you may call be crazy and ask "what don't you like about your pictures?", not understanding my concern. I remind these folks that image assessment is a personal thing, As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart remarked about pornography "I can't use words to describe it, but I know it when I see it", so too I say about defining a really good astrophotograph. I feel it in my bones. Of course, I can list a number of parameters that support the contention, but those details are checked after the fact. A good image rings " I AM AMAZING" in my head and later I verify its truth. With my images, I must try and refute a nagging voice whispering in my ear that it is sub par. And over time, I come to agree with it. At first glance, the image may look decent, but give it a few days, and it becomes a nose-wrinkler. Much like a house I suppose. You love it when you buy it, but after 20 years you can't wait to get out. The company that lets you sleep on a mattress for 30 days before deciding you want to keep it is genius! The stacks are fully calibrated and registered. I have included my most resent version of the image as reference--it is a reprocess of the image I recently posted as "M101 HaLRGB" . No amount of reprocessing has helped much. Thank you in advance, and have fun. I hope your images come out amazingly--for then there would yet be hope. r170.fit g116.fit b123.fit superL-471.fit ( made from low FWHM subs), you may want to try the pure luminance as well l400.fit , or a super-luminance made with all LRGB subs SuperL-LRGB.fit Which is better? h90.fit

.

Thanks, Sunshine

This is just about as good as I can do in my sky. Seeing was consistent across all channels and it was as dark as it gets at my house. Calibration worked well, and there is copious data. Still, at 27.5 hours, the faint extensions are barely noticeable. A corollary to this is the background is too dark, which is hard for me to avoid. The strange thing is the background looks overly bright during processing. Only the brightness values belie its apparent haziness. They are too low, but to my eye the background is very bright. That is typical for me. Otherwise, I am pleased with the galaxy itself.. Definitely my best M101. Only time will tell if reprocessing will improve the image. C11Edge with .7x reducer and ASI 1600 Red 170 120 sec; Green 116 120 sec; Blue 123 120 sec; Lum 400 60 sec, Ha 90 300 sec. Bin 2. I used a super-luminance of all RGB and Lum subs

Do you mean SHO?

Respectable indeed. I find the RC tools to be amazing. I have salvaged many clunkers using them.

Not bad at all. remove the gradients, equalize the color, and you'll have a very respectable M51.