I'm really disheartened, time to sell up?

[MARS1960]

I am getting so frustrated.

Nothing i do seems to work, i blame not enough data or rubbish processing, or a bit of both but i have seen really good images with less data than i take.

Last night for example, The Heart Nebula, 8 x 600s subs and once again all i got after stacking and then processing in PS was this rubbish.

I take my time, set everything up (PA is a little off but usually i'm perfect) and then end up with nothing to show for it. I'm thinking of just selling up. It's the same with all my images, it just seems a waste of time.

Here is last nights effort, iv'e added the autosave tiff too if anyone can help.

Autosave.tif

[Demonperformer]

First thought: A quick look at the tif in DSS looks as if the red data is considerably lower than the other two. Assuming you are using the canon in your signature, is it modded? If not, this will be blocking a lot of the red light that is emitted from these nebulae. I'm no expert, but I will see what I can produce.

[xtreemchaos]

nobody said it would be easy Mark, hang in there mate, long dark skys are on there way, that image isnt too bad mate.  charl.

[Chris]

Maybe it's the processing side you need help with, I notice that your background is black clipped.

[Demonperformer]

As I said, I'm no expert, and there is a colour-gradient from side to side that I can't seem to get rid of, so I'm not sure that I have done any better. My thoughts on your image (and I DO hope someone with more experience will correct me if I am wrong) is that it is somewhat overprocessed in an attempt to pull out more detail than it can stand.

That paragraph is largely woffle ... but I would agree with xtreemchaos. AP is a long, hard climb - and remember that the heart nebula is one of the IC numbers (which are generally fainter and so harder than NGC/M numbers). Also I have always found nebulae a lot harder than some other objects.

You will get there if you keep at it. I certainly would not wish to discourage you by suggesting objects in which you have no interest, but if you have any interest in clusters, some shots of these could help you hone your skills on something easier.

HTH

[Gina]

I feel sure that is an image from an unmodified DSLR.  Have a look at the ZWO range of cameras if you can possibly afford one.  They are extremely sensitive and far far superior to a DSLR.  You have a good selection of other components let down by your camera.  I don't think your image is all that bad for an unmodified DSLR.  What would be your budget for an astro camera?  I really think a camera could rejuvenate your interest in astro imaging

[MARS1960]

1 hour ago, Demonperformer said:

First thought: A quick look at the tif in DSS looks as if the red data is considerably lower than the other two. Assuming you are using the canon in your signature, is it modded? If not, this will be blocking a lot of the red light that is emitted from these nebulae. I'm no expert, but I will see what I can produce.

Thanks, it is a stock camera, i was considering getting a 700D from astronomiser.

Your effort looks better than mine.

 

55 minutes ago, Chris Lock said:

Maybe it's the processing side you need help with, I notice that your background is black clipped.

i think you are right, i guess i just need more practice.

55 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

As I said, I'm no expert, and there is a colour-gradient from side to side that I can't seem to get rid of, so I'm not sure that I have done any better. My thoughts on your image (and I DO hope someone with more experience will correct me if I am wrong) is that it is somewhat overprocessed in an attempt to pull out more detail than it can stand.

That paragraph is largely woffle ... but I would agree with xtreemchaos. AP is a long, hard climb - and remember that the heart nebula is one of the IC numbers (which are generally fainter and so harder than NGC/M numbers). Also I have always found nebulae a lot harder than some other objects.

You will get there if you keep at it. I certainly would not wish to discourage you by suggesting objects in which you have no interest, but if you have any interest in clusters, some shots of these could help you hone your skills on something easier.

HTH

 

23 minutes ago, Gina said:

I feel sure that is an image from an unmodified DSLR.  Have a look at the ZWO range of cameras if you can possibly afford one.  They are extremely sensitive and far far superior to a DSLR.  You have a good selection of other components let down by your camera.  I don't think your image is all that bad for an unmodified DSLR.  What would be your budget for an astro camera?  I really think a camera could rejuvenate your interest in astro imaging

I did have a ZWO Gina but couldn't get on with it so sold it, i just feel more comfortable with a DSLR.

I'm get frustrated really easily, i should try to just take my time i think instead of just giving it up as a bad job if something doesn't work straight out of the box.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

The Heart isn't an easy target I'm afraid, especially if you have any significant light pollution. I'd recommend going for something brighter (globular and open clusters, the Pleiades, the Ring, Pacman, North America & Western Veil should be suitable off the top of my head). I see your Dumbbell image has come out well with the same equipment, the star shapes are far better in that one.

Dithering and kappa-sigma stacking will help reduce noise if you aren't already using them.

Hope that's some help. DSO imaging isn't easy I'm afraid, if you would like to try something a little less challenging I'd recommend giving lens imaging more of a try. Tracking is more forgiving at a shorter focal length and at faster focal rations better signal-to-noise ratios can be achieved. There are some very affordable lenses available, although please bear in mind all those images were taken from a very dark site.

[MARS1960]

1 hour ago, xtreemchaos said:

nobody said it would be easy Mark, hang in there mate, long dark skys are on there way, that image isnt too bad mate.  charl.

Thanks Charl, i probably will, things just get on top of me when nothing is going right.

[xtreemchaos]

i know the feeling mate, playing the waiting game for clear dark skys dont help, but get this month over and goodnights will be here. your welcome .  charl.

[Gina]

We all suffer from that at times.

What was wrong with the ZWO camera and what model was it?  They have brought out some fantastic new models lately.  Of note, though not very cheap (cheaper than equivalent CCD cameras though) is the ASI1600MM-Cool.  Similar sensor resolution to a DSLR but very much more sensitive and much lower noise especially if a cooled model.

[MARS1960]

1 minute ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

The heart isn't an easy target I'm afraid, especially if you have any significant light pollution. I'd recommend going for something brighter (globular and open clusters, the Pleiades, the Ring, Pacman, North America & Western Veil should be suitable off the top of my head). I see your Dumbbell image has come out well with the same equipment, the star shapes are far better in that one.

Dithering and kappa-sigma stacking will help reduce noise if you aren't already using them.

Hope that's some help. DSO imaging isn't easy I'm afraid, if you would like to try something a little less challenging I'd recommend giving lens imaging more of a try. Tracking is more forgiving at a shorter focal length and at faster focal rations better signal-to-noise ratios can be achieved. There are some very affordable lenses available, although please bear in mind all those images were taken from a very dark site.

Yes i'm sure you are right.

I found M27 quite forgiving so will try other stuff, maybe IC1805 was a step to far without a modded DSLR.

My Lacerta MGEN to DSLR lead turned up today so at least i can start dithering next time.

I find tracking ok, my CGEM happily tracks at 5mins without guiding and if i want 30min subs the MGEN is excellent.

As others have said i feel i just aren't getting to grips with processing and i need a decent Camera for AP, especially those pesky red emmision nebula.

[swag72]

A couple of things stand out here - Firstly to me the focus doesn't look absolutely right.... and poor focus can make or break an image. Also there's some star elongation that again will affect the overall look of the image. 

I'm not sure what scope you took this with, but the focus issue is an easy fix...... the star elongation make be a little trickier to find. Do you guide? If not then your subs are really too long for getting round stars. Is your focal length too much for the mount? 

Just ideas that I'm thinking about when looking at this image. The thing is that until you get these two things right, then no amount of money spent on a camera is going to improve your results...... Get the basics right, the rest will fall into place.

Hope that helps:)

[MARS1960]

2 minutes ago, Gina said:

We all suffer from that at times.

What was wrong with the ZWO camera and what model was it?  They have brought out some fantastic new models lately.  Of note, though not very cheap (cheaper than equivalent CCD cameras though) is the ASI1600MM-Cool.  Similar sensor resolution to a DSLR but very much more sensitive and much lower noise especially if a cooled model.

TBH Gina......... me, it was the ASI120MC-S, using sharpcap, i just didn't give myself enough time as usual.

I have looked at the 1600MM but then it would mean using filters (i like colour) and i don't think i'm ready for that yet, i still haven't got my head round how to align images from different nights (plate solving i think its called, not sure).

[Gina]

You could go for the colour version.  Won't be quite as sensitive but still vastly more sensitive than a DSLR.  It will have enough pixels that using clusters of four will still give you decent resolution - like a DSLR.  Try using a lens rather than a scope and grab some widefield views.  Camera lenses have wider aperture so give you more light than a scope.  The old Pentax lenses are pretty cheap on ebay and excellent quality.  They were made by Asahi in Japan and called Takumar, Super Takumar or SMC Takumar (Super Multi-coated).  Or just try the lens that came with your DSLR.  You will need an adapter to use with an astro camera but these are only a few pounds - plenty of different sorts available on FLO.

Using a lens with it's shorter focal length and wider aperture (usually) should mean you won't need guiding - another headache avoided

[MARS1960]

6 minutes ago, swag72 said:

A couple of things stand out here - Firstly to me the focus doesn't look absolutely right.... and poor focus can make or break an image. Also there's some star elongation that again will affect the overall look of the image. 

I'm not sure what scope you took this with, but the focus issue is an easy fix...... the star elongation make be a little trickier to find. Do you guide? If not then your subs are really too long for getting round stars. Is your focal length too much for the mount? 

Just ideas that I'm thinking about when looking at this image. The thing is that until you get these two things right, then no amount of money spent on a camera is going to improve your results...... Get the basics right, the rest will fall into place.

Hope that helps:)

I was only using my little AT72ED on my CGEM, very well balanced too Sara.

I imaged M27 the other night with pinpoint stars at 300s without guiding perfectly well and IC 1805 last night i used my Mgen for guiding but no dithering as my lead only turned up this morning.

I must admit i didn't polar align last night but i do leave my mount outside well fixed but even so i should have, i guess this would explain the elongated stars, i even calibrated the polarscope a few days ago.

Focus is often not as good as it could be, i spend a good 15mins taking 10sec subs and fine tuning, then i tighten up the focuser and hit the go button, i couldn't believe how out of focus the subs were when i looked after finishing, the focus was perfect when i did my checks..

You can probably tell that i'm just not taking enough time, i am trying to slow down and do things carefully and methodically and i must adnit i have improved a little sine my first images at the beginning of the year, i think i just need to take that on board and apply it even more.

[Waldemar]

Patience and perseverance are the main skills for AP... I think most of us had those moments where we wanted to give up, but  the challenge is far too great to give up.
At a point the best of you comes to the surface and even the bad images will bring you joy.

Compare your images with the ones you made a year ago or so and enjoy your prgress.

AP is a long steep rocky road... but in the end it has all been worth it!

Just don't give up, that is far too easy!

Waldemar

b.t.w.:  Looking at your picture, I see field curvature (spheric abberation), if you are using a reducer/flattener, your backfocus is not right. If you are using only a reducer, you could maybe think of buying a reducer/flattener

[MARS1960]

2 minutes ago, Gina said:

You could go for the colour version.  Won't be quite as sensitive but still vastly more sensitive than a DSLR.  It will have enough pixels that using clusters of four will still give you decent resolution - like a DSLR.  Try using a lens rather than a scope and grab some widefield views.  Camera lenses have wider aperture so give you more light than a scope.  The old Pentax lenses are pretty cheap on ebay and excellent quality.  They were made by Asahi in Japan and called Takumar, Super Takumar or SMC Takumar (Super Multi-coated).  Or just try the lens that came with your DSLR.  You will need an adapter to use with an astro camera but these are only a few pounds - plenty of different sorts available on FLO.

Using a lens with it's shorter focal length and wider aperture (usually) should mean you won't need guiding - another headache avoided

I did actually try a wide field the other night of the cassiopeia region, i put my camera straight on my mount (which tracks extremely well) but that was not very good either, TBH i think it's my processing skills that are really letting me down and being overly hasty really doesn't help .

I'm actually bidding on a Canon 70-200 L f2.8, it should fit nicely at the wider end as i have the AT72ED at 430mm and the ED100 at 900mm also a 0.85 reducer. 

I think i'll buy the modded 700D from astronomiser and maybe hold off on a cooled CCD till next year, it would be a waste until i gain more experience i think.

The next clear night we get i will make a conscious effort to just slow down a bit.

[MARS1960]

34 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

Patience and perseverance are the main skills for AP... I think most of us had those moments where we wanted to give up, but  the challenge is far too great to give up.
At a point the best of you comes to the surface and even the bad images will bring you joy.

Compare your images with the ones you made a year ago or so and enjoy your prgress.

AP is a long steep rocky road... but in the end it has all been worth it!

Just don't give up, that is far too easy!

Waldemar

b.t.w.:  Looking at your picture, I see field curvature (spheric abberation), if you are using a reducer/flattener, your backfocus is not right. If you are using only a reducer, you could maybe think of buying a reducer/flattener

Thanks Waldemar,

I will stick with it, i think i know what my real failings are, i just needed a kick up the bum and a bit of encouragement and thats what i got so a big thank you to everyone who took the time to post.

[wornish]

First I am certainly no expert, still on a sharp learning curve, I have only done a few galaxies to date so nebulosity is a real challenge.

 

I extracted the background using PixInsight Automatic Background Extraction and you certainly seem to have some strange things going on it could be  light pollution but I am no expert, see attached file.

Did you take any Flats to include in the stacking?

 

Second point is you have a lot of noise in the image, its mostly red which really doesn't help extracting the nebulosity.  Did you take any Darks to include the DSS stacking?

 

Third point has already been raised the focus isn't spot on but not perfect and that doesn't help either.  

I have been "playing" with Pixinsight but I can't really get the image much if any better than yours.

I  certainly wouldn't be disappointed if I could get results like yours so certainly don't give up.  

[MARS1960]

Thanks for that Wornish.

I guess that the noise is probably inevitable using a DSLR for 10min subs and although i'm not in the city it is a small town with a few street lights, i would have hoped that my CLS LP clip filter would take care if it but obviously not as well as i hoped.

As for focus, point taken, i must remember to check it again after i have locked it off.

Thanks too for the encouragement.

[mak90fan]

I'm just starting out and having mixed results but everything is a learning curve, good or bad. Those images to me anyhow, looks amazing! When I achieve similar results I'm going to dancing around. Hang in there those pics have inspired me! 

[Stub Mandrel]

The Heart is hard, because the background is quite bright in comparison to the nebulosity, except what is your top right hand corner.

The basic problem with the autosave.tif seems to be that the detail is overwhelmed by noise.

My astro-modded 450D got more detail and less noise with 30 60-second subs - that's about a third less total exposure time. Even with an unmodded DSLR you should be getting better results.

I suspect you may be using a low-ISO in the hope of getting low noise, but perhaps ten minutes with an uncooled DSLR is pushing it too far on the warm summer nights. Are you using flats, darks and bias frames?

It is clearly too much for your PA as the stars are pretty eggy in the autosave, but there's also a lot of patterned noise that darks and bias frames should be able to get rid of. If you haven't, take 20 or 30 10-minute dark frames under similar conditions.

I'd suggest using ISO800 at least, taking more shorter subs. I've also started stretching in DSS as that uses the 32 bit data but I'm afraid all it does with your data is exaggerate the noise.

[gnomus]

1 hour ago, MARS1960 said:

I was only using my little AT72ED on my CGEM, very well balanced too Sara.

I imaged M27 the other night with pinpoint stars at 300s without guiding perfectly well and IC 1805 last night i used my Mgen for guiding but no dithering as my lead only turned up this morning.

I must admit i didn't polar align last night but i do leave my mount outside well fixed but even so i should have, i guess this would explain the elongated stars, i even calibrated the polarscope a few days ago.

Focus is often not as good as it could be, i spend a good 15mins taking 10sec subs and fine tuning, then i tighten up the focuser and hit the go button, i couldn't believe how out of focus the subs were when i looked after finishing, the focus was perfect when i did my checks..

You can probably tell that i'm just not taking enough time, i am trying to slow down and do things carefully and methodically and i must adnit i have improved a little sine my first images at the beginning of the year, i think i just need to take that on board and apply it even more.

It can be a frustrating business that is for sure.  

A couple of things stood out from your response to Sara's helpful post.  You say that focus was good and then you tightened up the focuser and had out of focus subs.  This suggests that you are getting some shift when locking focus.  This can happen.  It might be best to run another 10 secs sub after locking focus to check that you are still AOK.  If the shift was consistent then you may be able to get to a point where you can anticipate how much 'out' you need to be before locking down.  Or perhaps you are focussing soon after set up, before the scope has had a chance to cool down properly.  

Do you use Bahtinov Grabber?  (Sara put me onto that program some time ago and it was very helpful.  Sometimes the eye deceives.)  You will have to check focus regularly - maybe every hour or so.

You have some elongation at 10 mins.  I am unfamiliar with your guide camera.  Is it attached to a finderscope?  Could you have flexure?  It might be helpful to see some guide graphs.  If you can get pinpoints at 5 mins, why not try imaging some brighter targets at 5 mins until you get your mojo back?

You say you achieve 'perfect' polar alignment.  How are you getting that?  Many folks who set up and tear down each night are finding the Polemaster a useful gadget.  Indeed some of us with a permanent set up are finding it useful too.

Guiding can be hit or miss and is seeing dependent.  It is possible that you just had a 'wobblier' night than it looked.  Have you read Steve's book?

80 minutes is not a lot of data.  Someone else suggested that you may be trying to pull out more than the data will allow.  Look at how much data people like Sara collect before trying to process.  One thing to try to get out of might be the need to complete one or more images per night.  Try collecting (say) 6-10 hours of data on one object over 2-3 nights and see how much easier processing becomes.  When I was setting up and tearing down every night I would leave the camera attached to the scope so that the orientation didn't change.

 

[MARS1960]

I Didn't take any calibration frames Neil.

Darks i was told are a not needed with a 60D ( can't remember the technological reason why) i assumed flats were just to remove dust and vignetting.

As for 10min subs with a DSLR, i could't agree more, it is bound to create a lot of noise and i did wonder about taking maybe lots of 2min subs instead of a few 10min subs.

Also i;m a stickler for focus but i MUST remember to check it again once i've locked it off.