Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

can anyone do better with my images


Recommended Posts

hi all had a decent night and got a few images ,one was the whirlpool galaxy which probably needed more lights ,but processed any way,just wondered if any processing gurus could make a better job of my captures,as not sure if its my images ,processing, both or me(probably all):help:link to my images cheers guys and any advice really appreciated

 

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B82jaEcEJG-OT1NXYWJnN3VuZ1E&usp=sharing

 

my final effort for me is pretty good,but stumbled through processing

test2.jpg

 

 

 

whirlpool galaxy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Its a good start! Couple of things though.

Might be helpful if you post a bit more info about your kit and processing. Did you stack images with DSS? What length were subs? ISO? etc..

Your NEFF images have an odd colour cast - maybe light pollution or possibly your white balance is off. I cant remember how Nikon works for this - with Canon auto WB works well.

You need to do flats really - to even out the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi iwols,

I don't think I have a fast enough connection to download big files. however can you tell us the time for each of your light frames please? Are you using an equatorial mount or Alt-Az one? As a general guide you need more of each type of frame, light, dark, flat and bias to get the best out of your master image. The longer your individual frames the more light and better quality your final image will be and the more light frames you take improves the signal to noise ratio.

Good luck!

Cheers,
Steve

P.S. When I try to download one of the light frames it says it is a .jpeg not Raw images? Your lights are 90 seconds so I guess your using an EQ mount of some sort :-) Hope fully someone can help you further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SteveNickolls said:

P.S. When I try to download one of the light frames it says it is a .jpeg not Raw images? Your lights are 90 seconds so I guess your using an EQ mount of some sort :-) Hope fully someone can help you further.

You are probably right-clicking and 'save-as' ?? which will download the little jpg from the GoogleDrive folder display, , , you need to left-click to bring up the google file display then use the Download Button ( big downward pointing arrow in top middle of the display) to get the .NEF 27Mb file(s).

Yes, the embedded Exif in the NEF says 90sec,  run one through DCRAW :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

You are probably right-clicking and 'save-as' ?? which will download the little jpg from the GoogleDrive folder display, , , you need to left-click to bring up the google file display then use the Download Button ( big downward pointing arrow in top middle of the display) to get the .NEF 27Mb file(s).

Yes, the embedded Exif in the NEF says 90sec,  run one through DCRAW :)

Cheers, will try downloading after tea and post up later. Thanks again.

Cheers,
Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, I aligned the the RGB channels in the historgram in Deep Sky Stacker and stretched it a bit. I also added a little saturation (about 15% I think) to bring out the colour. I cropped the image in the wavelets section of Registax and also realigned the RGB and had a play with the Gamma (curves) and contrast. I only use the wavelets on planets as a rule, but the rest of the section works quite well for me.

I don't have a proper processing suit at the mo so this is what I use. I tried gimp but it only does 8 bit images, and is a bit of pain to get used to. The blue is probably a bit much, but you'll find it's easer to bring out colour while being subtle with more subs.

That being said I'm taking baby steps in this field myself, so thanks for the data to play with. :icon_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, iwols said:

thanks all using a heq5 mount with stellarium ,ascom,sidereel

Well you should be able to extend the exposure a bit if you have good polar alignment. Try experimenting - see how long you can go. Also I'd suggest flats, and also try setting your white balance to auto.

Run through DSS with recommended settings, using the NEFF files of course. Then align the RGB peaks if not already aligned, and save file as 16 bit. Then go PS to curves and stretch and maybe autocolour. Unfortunately I'd be here til Christmas trying to download the NEFF files - we have v slow connection!

Have fun!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a quick play before I dragged myself to bed...

proc tiff iwols.png

Definitely get some flats into the mix and longer subs are the way forward (and more of them) I reckon.... then again, I'm still learning a lot myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice shots of this galaxy. Besides adding flats to the mix, two more suggestions:

- a Bahtinov mask to help getting the focus right (cheap investment with huge returns)

- align your camera with the RA and DEC axes. If you move the mount in RA direction, stars should move parallell to the image frame. This will then make it easier to center the target. Take a test exposure. Have a look at where the main object is in the frame, plus a bright star which you can see in the cameras viewfinder. Then use that to center the object.

Aligning the camera with the mounts axes also makes it easier to take exposures on several nights.

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My go at it

Processed in PixInsight:

background extraction (extracted model is included as png, stretched) on the entire image to see how bad vignetting was

cropping

colour calibration

masked stretch

deconvolution

luminance extraction

noise reduction on luminance (would normally do this before stretching)

curve transformation of luminance

blurring of rgb

colour saturation and curve transformation of rgb

lrgb combination

cropping of final image

I could have darkened the background some more, but didn't want to loose a few fuzzies in the background

whirlpool_tuned.pngintegration_background.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wimvb said:

My go at it

Processed in PixInsight:

background extraction (extracted model is included as png, stretched) on the entire image to see how bad vignetting was

cropping

colour calibration

masked stretch

deconvolution

luminance extraction

noise reduction on luminance (would normally do this before stretching)

curve transformation of luminance

blurring of rgb

colour saturation and curve transformation of rgb

lrgb combination

cropping of final image

I could have darkened the background some more, but didn't want to loose a few fuzzies in the background

whirlpool_tuned.pngintegration_background.png

 

Omg are you sure youve used m'y images thats superb was it all done in pixinsight:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's all your image processed in PixInsight. There was a big blob that had to come out first :tongue2:, but underneath it there was quite some signal. There are even some faint galaxies in the background, just visible in the posted image. One can be found if you move halfway from M51 to the right upper corner.

The target is still too blue, and the background should be desaturated, but it's a start.

whirlpool_Preview01.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People here generally consider it expensive at € 230. (You do get free updates though.) On the other hand, it's cheaper than even a small scope.

Photoshop is cheaper, but you pay a fee per month. I believe that you reach "break even" after about 2 years. PS doesn't do the stacking, so you still need software for that.

PixInsight does all the processing, from calibration and stacking to processing and image solving (= finding which object hide in your image)

DSS is good at what it does, PI does more and does it better. I like it, but on the other hand, had I bought PS and learned that software, I probably would have like that. In the end they are just tools, and it is what you do with them that determines the result.

http://pixinsight.com/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian, get yourself over to Harry's Astro Shed - they videos there are fantastic. I've only used the beginner ones so far, but have found them to be brilliant - would have struggled to get into PI otherwise I think.

http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixinsight/pixinsight%20video%20html/Pixinsighthome.html

I think you will be convinced it is worth the price. As Wim says, PS is cheaper on the short term, but even at £6.99 a month, it soon adds up! I still use it for tweaking at the end, but I struggled to get to grips with the finer aspects of PS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.