The EQ3 DSO Challenge

[mikey2000]

About PixInsight - I think Nige said it all.    I've never heard of anyone 'going back to Startools'

 

That said, i had the trial for pixinsight and just couldn't even get started.  I had no idea what to do.  Startools just seemed to get working for me.    Maybe things would be different now (as I've been trying hard over the last 6 months to learn how to process Astro pics) but I still felt like PI was a programming language whereas StarTools felt more like an application I might have written using PI...

[Stub Mandrel]

5 minutes ago, mikey2000 said:

About PixInsight - I think Nige said it all.    I've never heard of anyone 'going back to Startools'

 

That said, i had the trial for pixinsight and just couldn't even get started.  I had no idea what to do.  Startools just seemed to get working for me.    Maybe things would be different now (as I've been trying hard over the last 6 months to learn how to process Astro pics) but I still felt like PI was a programming language whereas StarTools felt more like an application I might have written using PI...

I feel thick now, I couldn't get anything presentable out of Startools!

<deleted image because once uploaded it looked utterly ..... if I save an image in anything other than PS it looks totally different when uploaded :-( >

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Stub Mandrel

[mikey2000]

I managed some rather good guiding a few nights ago.    I was getting a constant series of nicely shaped stars at 3 minutes per sub and only one minor DEC glitch.  I went back to trying the good polar align and hope for only small guide inputs to DEC.  With an EQMOD AutoPec curve loaded, RA was a bit quieter too, leaving PHD2 to deal with the 19s sawtooth.  I had time for 23 subs and only one went in the bin.

 

Now, here is the result.    I think I could try again with 10min subs to see what comes out :-)  This took a *lot* of processing in Startools then Photoshop.  3 mins nowhere near saturated the raw histogram for each sub.  Even 12 mins (2 more 'stops') would only get halfway across the graph

IC1396 Elephant's Trunk Nebula

[Stub Mandrel]

My bubble nebula, processed in PSP, then gamma reduced in PS so it doesn't look so embarrassing

[mikey2000]

13 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I feel thick now, I couldn't get anything presentable out of Startools!

<deleted image because once uploaded it looked utterly ..... if I save an image in anything other than PS it looks totally different when uploaded :-( >

 

LOL!   I have to admit I spent rather a large part of my life trawling the Startools forums to work out the best way to stack in DSS then feed to Startools.  Following that, there were a few 'default workflows' that I adopted and only now dare to step beyond....

[mikey2000]

The bubble nebula looks good!  It's unusual to see monochrome in this thread but it helps us to see the bubble.   Did you try to get M52 in the pic (I think it's just peeping into the edge of the pic at the top right edge).

 

This nebula is now on my to-do list :-)

[Nigel G]

Mikey, what a lovely trunk image,  I love the star colours, good detail,  well captured especially with an unmodified camera. 

Neil,  your Bubble nebula is fine, definitely not embarrassing,  better than mine and I like mine ☺

Your doing well, learning new equipment takes time. Everyone posting in this thread shows great images and all move forward,  whether it be fast or steady doesn't matter. 

Keep them coming. 

Nige.

[Art Gecko]

Everyone seems to be getting on nicely with the guiding now... I want to jump on that bandwagon asap!!.... I'm not entirely happy with my input today... got these shots of M16 the other night, but was hoping to add to the data tonight for a multi-night decent pic instead of posting these now, but the forecast now looks better for tomorrow and I'm otherwise engaged..... So, here's 56.5 minutes on M16 taken in 30 second subs (I tried 30s simply to try and cut down on subs fit for the trash, otherwise I'd have gone for full minutes).... started out at 1600ISO and finished up at 3200... 100 shots of each (a little experiment if you will) threw half of them away as usual (really need to get guiding!!!) so I just threw the rest of them all into the mix... which if you've read previous posts of mine, you'll realise is a risky thing to do, but somehow I usually seem make it work...

anyway, to be fair it wasn't a total flop, but an extra hour of data might help.... I tried processing it twice and came up with very different results... first up, widefield view of the nebula... not so happy with it as it seems to have a lack of stars in the left hand side of the image, and from the right was a LOT of LP which I had to get rid of... unfortunately this meant I was never going to get a decent background sky..... I tried, but failed...

So I had another go... cropped it drastically this time in an attempt to stop the background distracting me from trying to make a nice picture... and to be fair.. same stack, but stretching it in a different workflow, with a different goal made me a lot happier with the outcome... Still can't get over how much LED street light conversion can really *&%$ over your astronomy! My LP filter just doesn't work any more!!

Hopefully soon I can add to this data, but till then, feel free to show me your own more successful attempts!

Art

[alacant]

29 minutes ago, Art Gecko said:

Still can't get over how much LED street light conversion can really *&%$ over 

? Does that mean led is good? TIA

[Art Gecko]

15 minutes ago, alacant said:

? Does that mean led is good? TIA

Nooooooo they are NOT good for us astrophotographers!! They may be better for the economy, but that's about it!

Normal (or old) streetlights, are made of sodium lamps, which emit a specific (though fairly broad) frequency of light which filters can compensate for... these new LED street lights are broad-spactrum white light, so even if you use a normal LP filter, the light still gets through.... I don't know if this makes a difference to narrow-band imaging?? but it sure puts an extra cog in the gears for DSLR imaging!!

Hope you don't get them near you!!!

Art.

[Art Gecko]

This is how bad the LP is since the town converted to LED... same image as the widefield shot from before (though I usually crop out the stacking margins, which I just realised none of you get with DSS!) but in this case I haven't done a gradient removal... just given it a stretch... and this is with a skywatcher light pollution filter!!

The camera was on it's side so 'down' is actually to the right, and the moon would have been rising from the bottom of this picture (east)... That big wash of brightness coming from the right hand side... that used to be orange... then I got an LP filter and it was less orange... now its like THAT and it's a nightmare to get rid of without ruining the rest of the picture!.... I'll not be defeated though, I will find a way!!

Edited August 18, 2017 by Art Gecko

[Stub Mandrel]

Well done Art,

I still haven't managed to get a bead on M16.

Have you tried gradient exterminator - its works AND if you tick 'balance background colour' it make processing your images for a decent colour balance much easier.

 

[Art Gecko]

Cheers Neil, will look into it.... Had another go at it this morning and managed to get a shot somewhere between the first two... the gradient is still there a little, but I think with more data it'll be heading in the right direction... M16 is tricky for me as it passes about 2 degrees above the roof tops, so in addition to street lights, you've got thermals to deal with too!!... Might be worth a trip to a dark site soon to make the most of it.

[Stub Mandrel]

This is what gradex does on a screen gab of your image. I just put a wide selection around the nebula, inverted the mask and ran Gradient exterminator on ''coarse, aggressive, balance background'.

[Art Gecko]

That gradex does look good, but I can get virtually the exact same result on Ps without it (see below).... I do think it takes some of the smoothness out of the nebulosity though, leaves it looking a little blotchy... I guess more data would help

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, Art Gecko said:

That gradex does look good, but I can get virtually the exact same result on Ps without it (see below).... I do think it takes some of the smoothness out of the nebulosity though, leaves it looking a little blotchy... I guess more data would help

Bear in mind I didn't have the original image to play with, just a jpeg...

[Art Gecko]

49 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Bear in mind I didn't have the original image to play with, just a jpeg...

Same here mate, I just did it to the jpeg too... I don't have a problem with gradex, it's a marvelous tool that simplifies the problem of gradient removal and you did a great job with it. I just feel it works better on galaxy shots than it does with nebulae... As always, the better the data you can put in, the better it will come out the other end... the more we cut out the gradient, the more of the nebulosity gets sacrificed in the process... it's a fine balancing act and that's why I prefer to do it manually rather than using the plug-in.

More data will help, the stronger the signal you want to keep, the easier it is to get rid of the rest without disrupting it too much... if I can get another hour or so on this target, I'm confident I can get a smoother picture overall.

[Nigel G]

On ‎26‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 20:12, Art Gecko said:

Nicely done @Nigel G I wonder what the nebulosity is left of top centre?

 

 

Art, I just found out its part of the Lobster claw  ( my Bubble image )

Better late than never  

[Stub Mandrel]

Took a few images last night, this is the best one of Sadr. I've done some noise removal with a star mask as the background suffered badly from the thin cloud. Transparency was awful, a hardly anything to see naked eye other than the main constellations:

Rest of them and the original Sadr are here (see I save the best for you lot!):

 

[Nigel G]

42 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Took a few images last night, this is the best one of Sadr. I've done some noise removal with a star mask as the background suffered badly from the thin cloud. Transparency was awful, a hardly anything to see naked eye other than the main constellations:

Rest of them and the original Sadr are here (see I save the best for you lot!):

 

Thanks Neil  that's a busy bit of sky. Plenty there. Maybe a little over developed ? Love the gold and blue star colours  

Mind you bad seeing doesn't help.

I have been messing around with past stacks, processing and developing quite a bit less than normal with great results, less noise more depth and better colour overall.

Here a little less exposure and a touch more vibrance. Hope you don't mind.

Nige.

 

 

[Stub Mandrel]

18 minutes ago, Nigel G said:

Maybe a little over developed ?

That's the curse of SGL, it looks better in Photoshop or windows preview. Here's the proof, same image on the left displayed in SGL, on the right in Window preview. Totally ***** any chance I have of winning one of the SGL challenges!

 

[Stub Mandrel]

This is an experiment, I've set Photoshop to embed an ICC colour profile in my images and forced it to use sRGB for all images.

This seems to have worked as it now load an astra-processed image without making it look dark, and astra now loads a PS processed image without lightening it.

The acid test, will one of those images, when uploaded, contrasty dark or will it be pale and 'over processed':

Looks like an improvement.

It seems Photoshop was displaying the images with a low (Mac-style) gamma so I was over stretching to compensate.

What I've done is change the PS settings, open the images in Astra (where they look bleached out), adjust the gamma to darken them, re-save and open in Photoshop and they look OK when opened instead of too dark previously opening an image set 'right' in Astra might see nearly all its nebulosity disappear when opened in photoshop.

Looks like I still need to do a crop to get rid of edge effects.

 

[Stub Mandrel]

At the risk of clogging things up, here's a version done without any darks.

 

 

[Nigel G]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

At the risk of clogging things up, here's a version done without any darks.

That looks smoother, the dark dust is showing better, a slight loss of bright gasses, overall better I think.

Nige

[rotatux]

21 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

That's the curse of SGL

I rather suspect our browsers to be the culprit... Some of them try to be smart and alter color profiles (for the sake of cohesion I presume). To check, you could try to open your local image in a browser tab, rather than going through SGL submission, and compare with external viewer of even PS.

BTW nice image, I like star colors too (a bit too cyan?). Interestingly the version I prefer is your last one without darks (less contrasty mottles), but it's maybe just a matter of black point.