Jump to content

Narrowband

Images losing color in DSS


Recommended Posts

All of the images look fine when viewing outside DSS. But then they look like black and white in deep sky stacker. I have tried stacking them anyway but the stacked image look the same. At first i thought they where imported as mono but there definitely is colour in them. What should i do? (I have attached pictures)

Namnlös.png

Namnl5ös.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, william_swe1 said:

All of the images look fine when viewing outside DSS. But then they look like black and white in deep sky stacker. I have tried stacking them anyway but the stacked image look the same. At first i thought they where imported as mono but there definitely is colour in them. What should i do? (I have attached pictures)

Namnlös.png

Namnl5ös.png

Make sure the box is checked that says “embed changes but do not apply them” as this will clip all the data, you want all the info there to take to PS or similar for further processing, but don’t do anything with DSS other than stacking, as it’s useless for anything else.. HTH, :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are new to processing then look on budgetastro.net Doug's videos will get you started.

You can follow them almost exactly using GIMP (free) or say PaintAShopPro if you do not have Photoshop.

If using images with foreground like your trees, then try using Sequator (like DSS but you can stop your foreground blurring).

Edited by happy-kat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LightBucket said:

Make sure the box is checked that says “embed changes but do not apply them” as this will clip all the data, you want all the info there to take to PS or similar for further processing, but don’t do anything with DSS other than stacking, as it’s useless for anything else.. HTH, :)

May I respectfully disagree - this is the common view, but an initial channel balance and stretch in 32-bit mode can keep more detail when saved as 16 bit for photoshop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

May I respectfully disagree - this is the common view, but an initial channel balance and stretch in 32-bit mode can keep more detail when saved as 16 bit for photoshop

You are welcome to disagree as long as I can too... :)

you need all the data there for moving into PS, so there is no need to do any changes in DSS as they will be gone when you embed the changes but do not apply them, if you so apply, you will clip the data... :)

Edited by LightBucket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LightBucket said:

You are welcome to disagree as long as I can too... :)

you need all the data there for moving into PS, so there is no need to do any changes in DSS as they will be gone when you embed the changes but do not apply them, if you so apply, you will clip the data... :)

If you stack 64 14-bit frames in DSS, it will generate a 20-bit file.

Import that into PS and you lose 4 bits of detail off the end.

If you can stretch faint areas without clipping the blacks, a lot more of that faint detail can make it into photoshop for further stretching.

You can either linear stretch in DSS as much as you can without clipping (usually DSS wastes about a third of the histogram at left) or you can apply a non-linear S-shaped stretch to get as much faint detail out as possible, still without clipping if you are careful.

I saw a marked improvement in the smoothness of faint nebulosity when I started doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

If you stack 64 14-bit frames in DSS, it will generate a 20-bit file.

Import that into PS and you lose 4 bits of detail off the end.

If you can stretch faint areas without clipping the blacks, a lot more of that faint detail can make it into photoshop for further stretching.

You can either linear stretch in DSS as much as you can without clipping (usually DSS wastes about a third of the histogram at left) or you can apply a non-linear S-shaped stretch to get as much faint detail out as possible, still without clipping if you are careful.

I saw a marked improvement in the smoothness of faint nebulosity when I started doing this.

Why would you loose 4 bits, my DSS outputs a 32bit autosave file that I use in PS, then save as 16bit...then nothing at all is lost during the transfer...but I use a 16bit camera

you can do all the stretching and linear curves you like in PS, on the full data set, don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to do that...DSS is superb at stacking, but then I output the finished autosave stack untouched to PS and do all the work there...works for me.. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LightBucket said:

Why would you loose 4 bits, my DSS outputs a 32bit autosave file that I use in PS, then save as 16bit...then nothing at all is lost during the transfer...but I use a 16bit camera

you can do all the stretching and linear curves you like in PS, on the full data set, don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to do that...DSS is superb at stacking, but then I output the finished autosave stack untouched to PS and do all the work there...works for me.. :) 

Because I have Photoshop CS2, and it won't let me manipulate a 32-bit image? i.e. it doesn't work for me! :happy7:

For clarity my 2017 version of Photoshop 64 bit refuses to open DSS autosave.tiff files and 32-bit tiffs. PS2 refuses to open the 32 bit tiffs and although it lets me look at autosave.tiff I can't edit anything like levels=,curves etc,. unless I downsample it to 16 bit.

If there IS a way, I'd be pleased to hear it.

Edited by Stub Mandrel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, KemalOz said:

I also use the autosave files, they are easier to process in PS. A friend recommended it to me though I have never bothered to investigate why :)

Because they are a raw untouched stacked image, which is what you need when moving to another programme, you don’t want any changes that DSS makes applied to the image, you want all the data to work with, like I said before DSS is excellent at stacking, but not much good at anything else.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LightBucket said:

Because they are a raw untouched stacked image, which is what you need when moving to another programme, you don’t want any changes that DSS makes applied to the image, you want all the data to work with, like I said before DSS is excellent at stacking, but not much good at anything else.. :)

hmm, so even though I don't make any changes when I press save button it alters the original image?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

This is an old post I know, but I disagree with the 'dont adjust in DSS but rather bring across to PS and do the stretching etc there'. ---I cant get this to work.

I have to stretch it so much that the image gets very noisy and ugly. Also when I try to add saturation to the monochrome looking image, I just get an overall hue to the image-- no individual colors.

I'd love to hear a possible thing Im doing wrong as I can only get it to work if I stretch/saturate in DSS but then DSS is noisy and adds artifacts.

Note: I have recently tried trial versions of APP and Pixinsight and easily got noise free bright images with plenty of color. Help Please.

Thanks JD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save a 16bit tif with embedded settings, it should be dark.
A couple of curve stretchs and levels tweaks in Photoshop should bring out what is in the image.
If it is noisy the SNR is most likely poor and you cannot stretch so much.

Photoshop does not like the Autosave tifs but Pixinsight works ok with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can do adjustments in DSS to see what you have got but don't save them.
Save as 16-bit TIFF with no compression and embed adjustments, do not apply adjustments.
You need a linear file in external software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Blue Straggler

I have tried this again. I restacked an image over and over again with all sorts of settings in DSS and brought them over to PS, with or without settings, and I still think its better to do basic adjustments in DSS and embed the settings in the 16bit Tiff image. I know Im disagreeing with most suggestions on the net (hence my frustration) but its the only way I can get the better image.

Thanks again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.