Daf1983

36 minutes ago, RoloFanatic said:

That looks great! 

Do you mind if I ask what mount did you use for this image, and also how long were the exposures?

Im thinking of trying the horsehead for the first time myself with a similar scope and a DSLR 😛

Thanks. I use a HEQ5, and used 5 minute exposures. I tend not go over that (even though I could, because the guiding is quite good), because I get noise/banding in my 600d. I use even shorter subs when not using the l-enhance (2-3 minutes usually), again because of the camera rather than the mount

12 hours ago, Jerry Barnes said:

looks good to me, nicely composed and little noise for only 3 hours.  I do like the l-enhance as well.  When the next clear night arrives do you add more time to this or go for another target?  Not an easy choice given what you have shown us.

Thanks for the kind words! That's a very good question. At the minute I'm saving for a dedicated camera (probably a 533 or 294mc pro). So in the meantime I tend to spend 3-4 hours on each object before moving on, just to gain some experience and develop my (limited) skills before I get a new camera. When I get a new camera, I will probably spend a lot more time on each target to get the best picture possible

This is my attempt at the Horsehead Nebula. About 3 hours of data gathered over 2 nights during full moon, using the l-enhance filter. I also used my Canon 600d and evostar 80ED. 

Could probably do with a bit more data, so it's a bit noisy. But time and clear nights are at a premium😔

As always, CC welcome.

Dafydd

I don't have an image to share because my laptop gave up on me last night. But since getting the l-enhance filter, I never consider the moon (a major) factor. As long as my target is relatively far away from the moon, I consider clear nights too rare to lose.

10 minutes ago, Elp said:

There's lots to choose from, PS will eat RAM and will slow down if you don't have enough though I've never ever had a computer use more than 8gb RAM even under very heavy load, you will need a 64 bit operating system to utilise more than 4gb of RAM so check on that.

Nowadays an SSD is a must but they are not all built equal, Samsung Evos generally are the best and an NVME one will have faster bandwidth than a Sata one.

I would also check on the CPU processor clock speed as multi core is all well and good but most programs don't multi thread so multi core can be negated whereas a faster core clock speed will benefit.

Thanks for the reply. What kind of clock speeds are we talking about, the one I'm looking at has 2.6ghz, is that acceptable? It's been a long time since I shopped for a laptop, and I feel a bit out of touch

My trusty laptop of 7 years died on me last night. Running a diagnostic test revealed the ram has gone. This could be repaired, but I'd been contemplating upgrading anyway.

I'm currently using photoshop for my processing, and will continue to do so for now. However, I would like the option of moving to pixinsight at some point.

I see pixinsight minimum requirement is an i5 processor with 8gb ram. But what is the reasonable real world minimum which would make it workable without taking a day to process one photo(I've heard some operations take a long time).

I have a budget of about £500, and a refurbished laptop seems the best option. I've seen a few options with i7 processors and 16gb ram for about my budget, but was wondering if anyone had some recommendations. Would the options below be any good?

Capturing the horsehead before it disappears behind the neighbours house😁

20 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I think your latest one is black clipped, ie jet black sky with nebulosity jumping out because the faintest stuff has also been discarded. I very much liked your original and fairly light background sky.

Olly

I agree! The original does seem to have more detail, I'll have another go🙃 

Had another go at processing this data from scratch following the advice from @ollypenrice and @ONIKKINEN. Not sure if I prefer the overall image to the first attempt, but I definitely prefer the more natural looking background (even if it is noisier). Thanks again for the advice, as I've learned a lot about how to use layer masks in photoshop after doing this. Might have another go at processing my M42 data to see if I can preserve the core using the technique Olly outlined above

1 hour ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Looks like the background is gone after your noise reduction, which could be wanted or could not be, depends on what you want. Olly already tipped you on the layer masks and their power in processing, but ill give you one method of easily removing colournoise from the background. Try this method before going for noise reduction tools, it could lead to a more natural look.

Easy to do in photoshop: Select -> Color range and then from the dropdown select "Shadows". Adjust the Range and Fuzziness to values that have all of the background selected (white) but none of the signal you want to preserve. Depending on your image and type of background this can be difficult, so just choose what fits your data best. Then click OK and you have a selection across the screen. Then go Select -> Select and mask and finalize the parameters of the new layer mask. You could put a small Feather effect on this so that the transition between values is more subtle. Could be important for some images. When happy select the Output To mode to be new layer with layer mask.

Then on that new adjustment layer just drop saturation by as much as you want. -100 will make the background monochrome and looks out of place in my opinion, but experiment on the exact value in your image. Since you selected only the background, only the background loses saturation and the interesting bits should remain whatever colour they were. Sometimes all it takes is desaturating the colournoise instead of trying to fight it away, but often it takes a bit of both.

Noise reduction is definitely something I need to work on, so thank you for the tips. I'll give this method a try when I get the chance

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

A man after my own heart. You could experiment with layer masking for the bright stellar cores.

- Make a new and much milder stretch, stopping once the cores look about right. Don't worry about the nebulosity.

- Paste this 'cores stretch' as a top layer over the full stretch.

- Create a layer mask for the top layer and paste a copy of the cores stretch onto it. It will be greyscale.

- Put a very big blur into the greyscale layer mask. (Try a Gaussian blur between 3 and 6.)

- Use Curves to manipulate the Layer Mask. You want to increase its contrasts massively, so pull down the bottom of the curve and push up the top. The dark parts will get darker (more opaque) and the bright parts will get lighter (more transparent.)

 

What will happen is that the layer mask will only be transparent where the bright signal lies - that is around the cores - so only the softer stellar cores will be applied to the lower image. Some jiggling with the mask and the top layer should let you get a seamless blend of the two different stretches. This technique is often used to blend different sub exposure lengths (eg for M42) but often all you need to do is blend two stretches, a hard and a mild.

Olly

Thanks for taking the time to explain this, very much appreciated! I have experimented a little with a masks, but with limited success to be honest. This gives me a much better idea of what to do👍 I will definitely give this a go when I have the time. 

Hi, thanks everyone for their comments.

@ollypenrice I use photoshop for my processing, for which I also have the astronomy set plug ins and astro flat pro. I agree with you with regards to the noise reduction in the 2nd photo.

Another clear night! Captured about 3 hours of data just before Xmas, using my Canon 600d and evostar 80ed. For some reason, dithering didn't work during the session, so it's a bit noisy. 

Still not happy with my processing skills, although I feel I'm getting there slowly. I've had 2 attempts at processing this.

Any CC with regards to processing would be welcome, also let me know which you prefer .

Dafydd

This is my attempt at M42, taken last week with a Canon 600d and 80Ed. Consists of about 2 hours worth of 1 minute subs with the l-enhance filter.

Interesting. Is the laser the only way to polar align, or is there a polar scope aswell?! Surely the laser alone wouldn't be accurate enough for astrophotography?!

Here's my first attempt at M42. Equipment used was Evostar 80ED, HEQ5, Canon 600d with an l-enhance filter. I stacked about 2 hours worth of 1 minute subs. Quite happy with how it turned out considering it was shot under full moon, with the neighbours Xmas lights flashing in (very) close proximity (so much so, my guide camera kept losing the guide stars!😂, so this is unguided). 

I'm sure the processing could be a lot better, but I just wanted to produce an image after 2 months of back to back clouds. 

CC welcome

Dafydd

I've been thinking the same lately! Loads of pictures on here, not a clear sky in sight here. Having said that, with work and family commitments, I can't really stay up until the early hours in hope of some break in the clouds, so that might be a factor. 

I'm also saving up for a dedicated astro camera, and these endless cloudy nights make me question if it's worth the outlay.

But then that one clear night(when it/if  comes) will change my mind again😂

19 minutes ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Hardly underwhelming. You photographed a galaxy (and its companions)!😀

I suppose expectations change when you spend a lot of money and see results others are getting. 

But when you put it like that, it's amazing that we can photograph a galaxy from our backyard. If someone showed me that picture 2 years ago, I would probably have been quite impressed. It's good to have some perspective though, so thank you😁

Gathered this data a couple of months a go, but never posted as I wasn't particularly happy with it, and was hoping to add more integration time. The weather has scupper that plan, and if we ever do get some clear nights I have other targets in in mind by now.

Anyway, here it is, a rather underwhelming and badly processed version of m31, if I remember correctly, the total integration time was about an hour. Shot with the 80ed and a canon 600d on a heq5.

Not the postman, but a birthday present from the sister in law👍

Having had no imaging opportunities in over a month, I thought I'd have a go at the moon. Only had a brief window without clouds, so only about 20 shots with the 600d and 80ed. Pipp, as3 and Photoshop  used for stacking and processing.

I've used this for about a year, and find it to be pessimistic regarding cloud cover. However I still use it alongside met office,  CO and ventusky

48 minutes ago, BobJC said:

LOL, Still trying to get to 25 posts so I can get access to the classifieds back. Difficult as I don't have a lot to say 😂

😂Your could try astro buy and sell, that's where I got mine👍

14 hours ago, BobJC said:

Hi,

Is your 600D astro modded? Just had mine done (Just the second filter removal) and was considering the L-ENhance clip in filter. Would you recommend?

Yes, my 600d is also modded. I've only recently purchased the l-enhance, so have only had a chance to use it once(with this target), but from my limited experience, I found processing was much easier after using the filter, the data seemed to be cleaner, and the nebula seemed to 'pop' more. Definitely don't regret buying it. Worth having a look at the 2nd market, as a lot of people seem to 'upgrade' to l-extreme which I believe is not as suited to a dslr. I got mine for nearly 1/2 price

Ordered last sunday, arrived yesterday morning, great service from Deep sky dad! Didn't realise how small this is!