teoria_del_big_bang

For me in my AP journey I just feel so lucky I found this forum before spending any money on equipment.
I bought my first scope when I was in my late 50's and I always intended to image from the start so came into imaging knowing nothing about astronomy at all.
Normally I am not great with money or very patient and normally want to just buy the gear and get on with it.
But after joining SGL and being brought down to earth a little, as like most absolute beginners I wanted a scope that would do everything, planets, large DSO;s, small DSO's, galaxies, really the lot and some of the adverts for scopes you could find offered ones that may do this and for not much money, but I was soon made aware this really was not possible (at all). 
I also learned that the mount was not just a fancy tripod but did so much more and that if I was to dabble in AP then this became so much more important, maybe more so than the scope.

And after joining SGL I pretty much stopped searching the multitude of internet videos and blogs as I started to realise you could not seem to get a definitive answer how to start in AP as they all offered differing suggestions on equipment, certainly regarding the scope. There was a sort of general consensus on some  that suggested to start with a HEQ5 and probably some sort of DSLR to keep the cost down, which is the route I took but whether tis is the best route or not I am not sure and is debatable.

But I had so many questions, why do I need filters, and what filters do I need, RGB yes that makes sense, but Lum, Ha, SII, OIII what the heck were they all about ? Do I need all these ?  And what about all the other filters available, do I need any of them ? Why do most sites suggest a mono camera is best ? Too many question to mention here.
I had no idea, at all.
And, whilst SGL is great and people willingly offer advice without ever accusing somebody of stupidity at the time  I often felt that I should not be asking such basic questions as I might be ridiculed, silly I know now, but not all forums (non astro) are as understanding as this one, I know all too well.
The one thing that did put me on the straight and narrow was Steve Richards book "Every Photon Counts". A book I am sure many imagers have read and after reading a couple of times I understood at least the basics, the book is excellent, it explains the basics in language I understood having no prior knowledge of this stuff and lots of illustrations. 
Okay this did not make me an imager by any means I still had lots to learn, but it gave me the ability to learn because I now understood the very basics and had some of the vocabulary used by imagers to understand some more advanced stuff now.

So when it comes to giving advice I think you need to ask who is this advice aimed at, the complete novice, that is those just starting out with no knowledge at all and no equipment yet, or those that have started, have a setup already, but are struggling, maybe with exposure lengths, guiding (always tricky when guiding for the first time), or those that have been imaging for a year or so and managing to get data but cannot process that data, and so on because they all require different depths of explanations so as not to outface a complete beginner with terms they cannot yet understand or to drive more experienced images to boredom. 
I would think you cannot cater for all of these really and for sure whatever advice you give has to be correct so you need to understand fully what you are explaining (I know this goes without saying but I am not sure it is true for all info on the world wide web 🙂 ) .

In a long winded way I think I am just agreeing with @alacant and @ollypenrice that yes there is a place for some good basic advice to beginners trying to explain stuff like every photon counts does and trying to get them a setup capable of AP without blatantly pushing them to one particular scope, mount camera etc and helping them to process that data to produce images, again not pushing them into one particular software. And if you could the tool @AstroMuni suggests could be part of that.
After this then it very much depends on what equipment they bought, what processing software they chose, and what problems they encounter along the way as some master some things easily and struggle with other things but not all struggle with the same issues so then  it requires a pragmatic approach and finding what works for them which is very difficult to predict up front without knowing what issues they will encounter, hence why these kinds of forums with a vast amount of knowledge, form all different areas within it that can offer help to people who have a particular problem and help in real time.

Steve

Welcome to SGL, if you want to learn anything Astro related then this is the best place as I found when I started.

Steve

1 minute ago, Skipper Billy said:

Shocking weather and injury means I have only produced three images this year!

This is my favourite.

 

Ah well if you are only going to get 3 images make them good uns, and that's a cracker 🙂 

Steve

1 minute ago, geoflewis said:

Wow....!! Just wow....!!

Pretty much all I could say too as I was almost speechless,
Magnificent Image. 
It's one of those images I see occasionally and keep a copy in a directory of a handful of images I have that is what I am aiming for as my imaging and processing improves.
In all probability I never will achieve such , partially due to my sky quality and imaging  time available, and some due to my own limitations and skills, but it always pays to strive towards something 🙂 

Steve

2 minutes ago, Priesters said:

Thanks Steve, much appreciated.  Have to say that if I'd have produced your image of the JellyFish I'd be printing it up and insisting it goes on my Living Room wall 👍

Unfortunately my post processing is currently limited to DSS and GIMP so the BlurXT experiment will have to wait 🙂. 

Thanks for those kind words.

Personally I found Gimp quite hard to use, maybe it has vastly improved some 4 or 5 years on but if not then that's  actually some great processing.
I must admit when I took up AP I had no idea that  processing would be as hard (perhaps on refection even harder) than the acquisition of the data itself and its always worth keeping all data for either further processing attempts later when you learn other techniques , or other software is available or just to add further data to it.
It seems that processing wise things are always changing and you never really seem to master it as you continue to learn with each new image. PArt of the fun I guess 🙂 

Steve

13 minutes ago, Priesters said:

Bit noisy and had a problem with pinched optics but I was quite pleased with my M33 taken an couple of weeks ago with an Altair 183C and WO GT81.  1hr 45mins of capture time.  Still a lot to learn about processing 🙂.

 

Lovely Image 🙂  

I wonder what BlurXT would do for this image, it seems to work extremely well on galaxies, downside is you almost have to start from the beginning of post processing before any noise reduction but might be worth it for this wonderful image.

Steve

Terrible year for me due to weather, I don't really have a setup for smaller galaxies so normally do nothing much anyway in galaxy season and rest of year, even though we had one of the direst summers on record most nights either side of summer seemed to have some clouds. 
This was probably my best image (only really managed 3).

In all honesty I really should have another go at processing it as I think the data is better than the image i managed.

IC443 Jellyfish Nebula

Steve

Happy New Year 🙂 

Steve

5 minutes ago, 900SL said:

Trevor Jones is a balony merchant. Grade 1 influencer for WO, ASI, and Radian among others

I stand corrected then, not looked for many years, mainly when I started but maybe I am just blasé as I never noticed any sort of suggestion to any particular brands, but then I never do.

Steve

7 minutes ago, Karl Perera said:

By influencer I just meant popular person on youtube that presents videos about astrophotography.

I think you should remove the word Influencer from the OP tbh as that's not what you are wanting and I doubt many SGL members will have watched any content presented by them.

So now I understand then my particular favourite's are Adam Block and Trevor Jones (astrobackyard.com)

I am not quite sure I understand your question.
I have watched many tutorial videos and read lots of articles but I cannot say any of the authors were influencers as none of them were promoting anything, unless you include the product that the tutorial was about but then I had searched for that product so I cannot say they had any influence on whether I had bought it or not.

Steve

Some cracking images many thanks for sharing them with us 🙂 

Steve

I can only agree with the above comments, a great image.
That too was my target at Kelling and also only managed about 2 hours over 2 nights but so far not had any further data to complete it.

Steve

Interesting, at least you found you are not alone which is always comforting 🙂 

Steve

Agree, good looking dark, can you upload a light frame as well, I do not profess to be any expert by any means but would like a look and you never know somebody with greater knowledge may also be able to contribute.

Steve

That really is a great image 🙂 

Steve

5 minutes ago, ninjageezer said:

no amp glow whatsoever even on a 5 min dark frame...its only on lights...

So is that with a dark taken with camera still on the rig ?

To eliminate some possibilities I think you also need to take a longish exposure and then rotate the camera , say approximately 90 degrees, and take the same image again. Also, take two images of same target of vastly different exposures (say 2 mins and 10 mins).
I would also upload the actual images rather than a screenshot as people can then inspect them, sometimes comparing auto-stretched images can be very deceiving without knowing how each of them have been stretched.

Steve

Well, you have done it again Rodd, another great image 🙂 

Steve

4  years ago or so when I started AP I would not have appreciated the effort what goes into an image like this, thankfully I fully appreciate it now, well done that us another superb image 🙂 

Steve

Welcome to SGL

Steve

I am off for a drink or two with some old school mates, some I have not seen for 45+ years so will not be able to comment, as I cannot see well enough on my mobile,  but please let the thread continue to be a good and informative discussion, I would hate to come back to it and see it closed down or have a telling off 🙂 
 

Steve

1 minute ago, Magnum said:

Watching Adams very interesting video and noticed something

In the pillars of creation example im a little worried the the Bok Globules appear to actually grow from very little original data rather than just sharpen, though in a kind of cool way.

Ive dabbled with Topaz DenoiseAI and that can really create false details, I find I have to run it several times in each mode then apply them selectively in layers and avoid anything that looks additive. BlurX seems much better in this regard but I would still have to keep comparing to other images to satisfy myself that nothing has been added.

Lee

I too never really liked Topaz Denoise for the same reason and agree that with this software you can create things that are not there as my post a few above, I think that whatever software we use for sharpening it has to be used with care and be true to your images and back it off a bit when things like this happen.
Of course they are your own images and you can create what you want but despite our contretemps above most of us agree to be true to our collected data 🙂 

And please may the debate continue

Steve

1 minute ago, geeklee said:

Yep, the "squiggly wigglies" are turning up in plenty of images since the release of BlurXT 🤣

I think Olly commented on this early in the thread and yes like any sort of deconvolution, or sharpening, you have to be careful how far to take it, like any process when artefacts appear then pull it back a bit and do not be tempted to push it.
But it also has been commented that this process seems to get at least the same results with far less effort and in many instances better results before causing any artefacts.
I find that the fact far less effor is required makes it so easy to have several attempts so you can see its gone too far and get a good result without adding stuff.

Steve

7 minutes ago, Magnum said:

Back to Blur X

Agree 🙂 

21 minutes ago, Magnum said:

its funny ive tried the pix insight trials about 10 times now but still cant make myself purchase it due to the hideous user interface and crazy workflows ( im sure it was designed by monkeys. 😛 ).

I don't want this great thread to end up a PI V PS thread, and I really do understand why some people struggle addapting to PI, especially when so used to other software such as Photoshop, the two are very much chalk and cheese, but certainly for myself who never came from a PS background the PI way of thinking actually just felt very natural and the right way to do things.
I have an older copy of PS and trued man times to get to grips with that and for me I just cannot get into PS, that to me just feels really alien, but to say something has been designed by monkeys I do feel is really unfair and hints that the many that do use PI as their main procesing software are also monkeys.

However, Ollys comments about the creators of PI does strike a chord with me as somewhile back they made it very difficult to use some 3rd party software, one which I used religiously called NSG script. After an update of PI this script dissappeared and it was a long workaround to get it working again. That incident caused a lot of upset and despite loving PI I made attempts to get back into PS as I hated that pholospophy, thankfully they seemed eventually to relent and now all the old scripts are still easily incorporated into PI.

So I think PI will always be the Marmite of processing software but I am sure we can all live side by side without these kinds of insults, thats not really what this great forun is about.

Steve