Yes Finally a clear night! Advice for making pics better

[yelsac]

Finally After months one solitary clear night!

Ah well mustn't complain

First half decent go at M42, only 5x180 lights guided (would have had a lot more but totally forgot about tree at the end of garden, would you believe it?)

                                                    10x Darks

                                                    15x Bias

                                                    10x Flats

all with 150p & Canon 1100d unmodded

I know its over processed but I got a bit finger happy!

1st one with flats

2nd without

Tried without flats as I completely forgot to take them so used an old set.

What can I do to improve with the same setup (other than get more lights)

Thanks for looking

[beamer3.6m]

Nice pic.

Try shorter exposures and then combine the images so that the core is not blown out.

[laudropb]

Looks pretty good to me.

[gorann]

Your shots show great promise, but clearly if you use flats they need to match your lights or you do better without them. With a DSLR, more and more people stop taking darks (since your sensor temperature varies they may do more harm than good) and many also skip flats. Most modern DSLRs have chip cleaning mechanisms built in and if you use filters and keep them clean that helps. Then your only problem is gradients, if you have any. Have a look at this video - if you have Photoshop I think this is the way to go. After I started using this procedure recently  it made a quantum leap in my processing particularly with regard to reducing noise, and it you have a gradient problem it will also help and thereby allow you to skip flats.

[Grotemobile]

Another very good

here as well.  

Steve.

[gorann]

PS. here is the same data for the Orion Nebula before and after I staring using Adobe Raw in Photoshop to process my Canon Raw (CR2) files, notice the difference in noise particularly in the dust (I hope the resolution here is good enough).

Before

After

(30 x 2 min subs at ISO 1600 with a Canon 60Da and ES 127apo on a NEQ6)

[ollypenrice]

Your flats have worked quite well to reduce the vignetting despite being taken at the wrong time. The vignetting won't vary much anyway. However, the colour balance has gone haywire in the flats-applied version with an enourmous green bias. Do you know why this is?

Without flats you'd be better to flatten using Pixinsight's Dynamic Background Extraction if you have it. If not there's Gradient Xterminator for Photoshop. Green noise is also easily dealt with in PI's SCNR Green or with the free Hasta La Vista Green from the Deep Sky Colors website.

If you want to combine long and short exposures for the Trapezum region then this is a good tutorial. http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/LAYMASK.HTM

Olly

[yelsac]

Nice pic.

Try shorter exposures and then combine the images so that the core is not blown out.

Thanks for the info

I'm still learning so I don't know much but won't shorter subs not gain as much detail?

When you say combine how many would you take, say of m42?

thanks

[yelsac]

PS. here is the same data for the Orion Nebula before and after I staring using Adobe Raw in Photoshop to process my Canon Raw (CR2) files, notice the difference in noise particularly in the dust (I hope the resolution here is good enough).

Before

IMG_726-755 OrionNeb to print.jpg

After

IMG_746-755NewPS6+old mix.jpg

(30 x 2 min subs at ISO 1600 with a Canon 60Da and ES 127apo on a NEQ6)

Wow absolutely love your images!

I know your camera & Scope are better than my 150p & Canon 1100d but the detail in your pics are stunning, also my camera doesn't have the self cleaning function which is a pain.

Hope you don't mind me asking but do you not use darks/flats?

With your pics how many subs & calibration pics did you take & what length were your lights?

I must admit I haven't got Photoshop I simply use DSS & then Gimp 2 to finish.

Thanks for the video link I will have a watch.

[yelsac]

Your flats have worked quite well to reduce the vignetting despite being taken at the wrong time. The vignetting won't vary much anyway. However, the colour balance has gone haywire in the flats-applied version with an enourmous green bias. Do you know why this is?

Without flats you'd be better to flatten using Pixinsight's Dynamic Background Extraction if you have it. If not there's Gradient Xterminator for Photoshop. Green noise is also easily dealt with in PI's SCNR Green or with the free Hasta La Vista Green from the Deep Sky Colors website.

If you want to combine long and short exposures for the Trapezum region then this is a good tutorial. http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/LAYMASK.HTM

Olly

Thank's for your comment, yes to much green I must admit I think that was me in processing I put to much green into the pic!

Unfortunately I don't have Pixinsight or Photoshop do you know if there is something similar in Gimp2?

Thanks for the link I'll have a read

[gorann]

Hi yelsac!

I have not seen much (if any) gradients in my lights so I have not felt any need for flats (maybe I am too new to AP to notice). When I finally get started with mono (soon I hope - I bought the stuff) and filters I assume I will need flats at least to correct for dust in the image train, so I bought a white screen. Also if I had a full frame (24 x 36 mm) DSLR I am sure I would see more gradients in my subs with the scopes I have. I do not do darks or bias either but I should probably do a bad pixel map at least, but the last times I have been imaging it has been sub-zero temperatures so my Canon has been both frosty and very silent particularly if I do not expose longer than 5 - 8 min.

When it comes to detail, it is boosted quite a bit by Photoshop processing using for example  "unsharp mask", "smart sharpening" and "Enhance local contrast". The latter is in Noels AP actions (a cheap Photoshop add-on you can find on the net). So, at least for me Photoshop has been a great investment.

The subs are 10 x 2 min at ISO 1600 with some additional short subs blended in for the core of M42 (some 10 and 20 second subs at ISO 800). It was actually a quite hazy night with flickering stars and unclear Milky Way, so I am sure I could catch more detail and get much smaller stars on a better night, but I am still waiting for that night....

This is what it looked like before I started processing it in Photoshop and added the short exposures for the core (except for some stretching using curves).

[gorann]

Actually, when I look at your pic I see that you have smaller stars than me, so probably a better night, so I expect you can get much more detail out of your data with more processing.

[ollypenrice]

Nobody ever had too much data. On a bright target like this the advantage starts to level off at about 5 to 10 hours total, depending on things like F ratio and camera sensitivity. But seriously, astrophotography is about exposure time. That's the name of the game. Mine had about ten hours in a fairly slow scope (F7.) 

Olly

[yelsac]

Actually, when I look at your pic I see that you have smaller stars than me, so probably a better night, so I expect you can get much more detail out of your data with more processing.

WOooooooooow I can't believe the difference after processing in Photoshop unbelievable!

thanks for the advice

[gorann]

Olly is of course right in that more data would make a great difference and I promise him I will do my best to collect a lot of data after I am done with finding out what is out there in the sky and calmed down and stopped jumping between targets. Still, to show you a bit of what sharpening can do (+ a bit of curves) I took the liberty of downloading your jpg. Because it is a compressed jpg with only 100 kb of data (probably less than 1% of the data in your original raw files) and probably also because you have only 5 subs it became rather noisy after sharpening, but I think it indicates that there is more detail to bring out. With more subs and with a few 10 - 20 second subs of the core to blend in, and with some processing, it will eventually look fantastic.

your original

after sharpening

[MartinB]

Important to look at what you are getting right.  You clearly have your set up quite well sorted and have got some nice round stars.  A decent amount of data for 30 minutes.  So image calibration and processing is the next thing to work on.  The integration of Adobe Raw with Photoshop is great and makes things so much easier as is demonstrated by the video earlier in the threat.  I don't know much about gimp other than the fact that it's free!  If you can stump up £9 a month for Photoshop cc you will find lots of online support and tutorials to help you up the learning curve.  Also lots of knowledgeable folk on here to help you along.  There's nothing we like better than having a play with data!  

PixInsight is also amazingly powerful but a bit daunting at first.  There are one or two good gradient removal tools but for dealing specifically with vignetting of DSLR images you are unlikely to want to faff around with PIs dynamic background extraction or the PS plugin, GradientXterminator after you've tried Adobe Raw.

[Xiga]

I thought the Tony Hallas method was mostly for those using camera lenses instead of telescopes?

Just wondering if i'm missing a trick here, as i just use DSS & PS, and don't bother with ACR at all.

[carastro]

I'm still learning so I don't know much but won't shorter subs not gain as much detail?

The main nebula needs longer exposures as you have stated, but take a batch of shorter ones for the core and use the tutorial Olly posted up to learn how to combine them, this method stops the core being too bright and blowing out.  

Images are always easier to process with flats (of course taken at the right time is best),  If you look at your second image the one without the flats you can see that the centre of the image is much brighter that the corners.  Even taken at the wrong time flats are better than nothing.

Considering you don't have Photoshop and little experience, that has come out remarkably well.

Carole 

[gorann]

I thought the Tony Hallas method was mostly for those using camera lenses instead of telescopes?

Just wondering if i'm missing a trick here, as i just use DSS & PS, and don't bother with ACR at all.

I use the Tony Hallas "method" to get the best tifs out of the raws (CR2) before stacking. Actually, what Tony is doing in the video is not so much presenting a new method but to point out that we should not miss the opportunity to use the sophisticated raw conversion function in Adobe Photoshop (i.e. not just use the default settings there but to really use it to make a first processing of the images). If the data is taken with a telephoto lens then you can use a large database in this Adobe Raw plug-in to correct for any known optical problems with a particular lens. That you cannot do with a telescope image, but other functions work for a telescope and I am particularly impressed by the noise reduction function. You can also use it to remove gradients if you have no flats, and do initial stretching and colour adjustments.

[yelsac]

Olly is of course right in that more data would make a great difference and I promise him I will do my best to collect a lot of data after I am done with finding out what is out there in the sky and calmed down and stopped jumping between targets. Still, to show you a bit of what sharpening can do (+ a bit of curves) I took the liberty of downloading your jpg. Because it is a compressed jpg with only 100 kb of data (probably less than 1% of the data in your original raw files) and probably also because you have only 5 subs it became rather noisy after sharpening, but I think it indicates that there is more detail to bring out. With more subs and with a few 10 - 20 second subs of the core to blend in, and with some processing, it will eventually look fantastic.

your original

post-18021-0-21259400-1451762740.jpg

after sharpening

yelsac sharper.jpg

I can see the difference, this Photoshop program is really something!

[yelsac]

The main nebula needs longer exposures as you have stated, but take a batch of shorter ones for the core and use the tutorial Olly posted up to learn how to combine them, this method stops the core being too bright and blowing out.  

Images are always easier to process with flats (of course taken at the right time is best),  If you look at your second image the one without the flats you can see that the centre of the image is much brighter that the corners.  Even taken at the wrong time flats are better than nothing.

Considering you don't have Photoshop and little experience, that has come out remarkably well.

Carole 

Thanks for the comments

Does it matter what version of Photoshop you have? I only ask because a mate of mine has an older version I think its CS3

[MartinB]

Until recently I was using CS2 and it's fine.

[carastro]

Does it matter what version of Photoshop you have? I only ask because a mate of mine has an older version I think its CS3

That's what I use and as Martin says CS2 is fine as well.

Carole 

[yelsac]

Hi yelsac!

I have not seen much (if any) gradients in my lights so I have not felt any need for flats (maybe I am too new to AP to notice). When I finally get started with mono (soon I hope - I bought the stuff) and filters I assume I will need flats at least to correct for dust in the image train, so I bought a white screen. Also if I had a full frame (24 x 36 mm) DSLR I am sure I would see more gradients in my subs with the scopes I have. I do not do darks or bias either but I should probably do a bad pixel map at least, but the last times I have been imaging it has been sub-zero temperatures so my Canon has been both frosty and very silent particularly if I do not expose longer than 5 - 8 min.

When it comes to detail, it is boosted quite a bit by Photoshop processing using for example  "unsharp mask", "smart sharpening" and "Enhance local contrast". The latter is in Noels AP actions (a cheap Photoshop add-on you can find on the net). So, at least for me Photoshop has been a great investment.

The subs are 10 x 2 min at ISO 1600 with some additional short subs blended in for the core of M42 (some 10 and 20 second subs at ISO 800). It was actually a quite hazy night with flickering stars and unclear Milky Way, so I am sure I could catch more detail and get much smaller stars on a better night, but I am still waiting for that night....

This is what it looked like before I started processing it in Photoshop and added the short exposures for the core (except for some stretching using curves).

IMG_746-755NewPS1.jpg

Hi Me again

I've managed to borrow an old photoshop program

I hope you don't mind me asking but to get a basic idea, what kind of settings do you use on unsharp mask & smart sharpening In radius/Amount?

Also where do you get the Enhance local contrast add on?

Thanks

[gorann]

You buy Astronomy Tools for 22 USD, which has a series of great "actions" including Local Contrast Enhancement. Just check on their web site that it will work on your Photoshop version.

http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/Astronomy_Tools_For_Full_Version.html