My images don't have a "POP" to it

[souls33k3r]

Hi All,

I've been working with PI for a while now. I can work my way around the image processing and produce semi decent results but there's something always lacking and that's the POP in the image. I've gone from 6hrs total image integration to 13hrs but i'm still lacking the necessary sharpening and nebulosity details. I don't know what i'm missing here. I'm eager to learn and will not be satisfied with my results until i get it right. Any help would be much appreciated.

Link to a higher resolution: https://www.astrobin.com/368694/0/

The image that i can closely relate my FOV to and has all the necessary details is https://www.astrobin.com/full/275069/0/ ESPECIALLY https://www.astrobin.com/74223/B/?nc=user

Another example is https://www.astrobin.com/365878/?nc=user (mine) vs https://www.astrobin.com/full/161571/0/ (someone elses)

Thank you in advance

[Ags]

Have you tried Startools? It's got some magic buttons that make my efforts a bit brighter!

[Skyline]

I think that has Coca-Cola Pop to it already.

[DAVE AMENDALL]

The contrast and brightness buttons in GIMP can work wonders in some cases. 

[souls33k3r]

4 minutes ago, Ags said:

Have you tried Startools? It's got some magic buttons that make my efforts a bit brighter!

No i haven't, i'd like to stick with Pixinsight. I don't want to confuse myself with different tools.

[Ags]

I just put my pictures in Startools, shut my eyes, and click all the buttons... ?

[Skyline]

How about adjusting some curves and the black point.

[souls33k3r]

8 minutes ago, Skyline said:

I think that has Coca-Cola Pop to it already.

hahahaha that made me chuckle. But you know what i mean by pop. There's that sharpening missing from it, the nebulosity details. I've edited the topic to include what i'd like to see in an image and what's missing from it.

8 minutes ago, DAVE AMENDALL said:

The contrast and brightness buttons in GIMP can work wonders in some cases

Cheers Dave but like i said, i'd like to stick with PI because i know the software can do it but i just don't know what i need to do to bring out those details.

5 minutes ago, Skyline said:

How about adjusting some curves and the black point.

You could be right there but i'm sure i'm still missing out on something here.

[Skyline]

Just remember not to over process it, you have some wonderful data there already.

[souls33k3r]

1 minute ago, Skyline said:

Just remember not to over process it, you have some wonderful data there already.

Yeah i tend not to cross that line. I go back and forth many a times and work on multiple copies (i process on my TV so how it shows up on PC monitor screen and phones and whatnot is totally different).

[Oddsocks]

18 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

will not be satisfied with my results until i get it right

Well, you’re not really being easy on yourself comparing back-garden image data from a London suburb and poor UK skies with an image taken with a 16” RC from the Sierra Mountains!

The quality of the source data will dictate what can be achieved, you can only post process so far....

Probably, the best way forward is to download a selection of source data from professional observatories, process that in PI then compare their published results with yours, that at least will show if your processing needs more work or if it is your source data that is lacking.

William.

[souls33k3r]

4 minutes ago, Oddsocks said:

Well, you’re not really being easy on yourself comparing back-garden image data from a London suburb and poor UK skies with an image taken with a 16” RC from the Sierra Mountains!

The quality of the source data will dictate what can be achieved, you can only post process so far....

Probably, the best way forward is to download a selection of source data from professional observatories, process that in PI then compare their published results with yours, that at least will show if your processing needs more work or if it is your source data that is lacking.

William.

I know i'm not being easy on myself mate and that's the drive that will make me go extra lengths to achieve just a fraction more until i go out on my next expedition  I'm a learner and the learning never ends. 

You've just given me a great idea. I can most certainly do that. Any links to share?

But the fact remains, i want to get better on my processing and achieve the results in the topic

[carastro]

To be honest this particular target is not an easy one to get much of a sharp detailed image on.  Take a look at what other people have managed to achieve (ignore those done in dark remote locations as none of us can hope to match those). 

Carole 

[souls33k3r]

5 minutes ago, carastro said:

To be honest this particular target is not an easy one to get much of a sharp detailed image on.  Take a look at what other people have managed to achieve (ignore those done in dark remote locations as none of us can hope to match those). 

Carole 

I totally agree with you on this Carole. This particular target wasn't really an easy one but i'm missing this "POP" in my images altogether.

Another example is https://www.astrobin.com/365878/?nc=user vs https://www.astrobin.com/full/161571/0/

[carastro]

I took a look at your Wizard, I think it is probably just a matter of a learning process with post-processing, and this does take a long time to learn.  I only use Photoshop so can't help with Pixisight.

This is what I managed to do with PS using just a copied Jpeg.

Left is your image from Astrobin, right is my further processing.

 

 

[souls33k3r]

2 minutes ago, carastro said:

I took a look at your Wizard, I think it is probably just a matter of a learning process with post-processing, and this does take a long time to learn.  I only use Photoshop so can't help with Pixisight.

This is what I managed to do with PS using just a copied Jpeg.

Left is your image from Astrobin, right is my further processing.

 

Oh i like that. I don't mind integrating PS to the mix but i know some will say use High pass or smart sharpen but tbh that destroys my stars for me. (I don't know how to make masks in PS). I suspect you played with levels and curves on this one?

Again, i'm not really concerned with the colours, it's the nebulosity details and sharpening that i'm looking for some advice.

[carastro]

I used, Match colour to increase the colour, one iteration of curves and a bit of lab colour.

Carole 

[carastro]

I have started to do some video tutorials as I have been teaching a few people remotely.  I might add a processing routine in Photoshop if you are interested.

Carole 

[Oddsocks]

23 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

Any links to share?

http://www.remote-astrophotography.com/cgi-bin/Fits.pl

http://hla.stsci.edu/

http://www.lightvortexastronomy.com/sample-image-data.html

 

[souls33k3r]

3 minutes ago, carastro said:

I have started to do some video tutorials as I have been teaching a few people remotely.  I might add a processing routine in Photoshop if you are interested.

Carole 

Oh i'd love that for sure Carole, thank you 

[souls33k3r]

Just now, Oddsocks said:

http://www.remote-astrophotography.com/cgi-bin/Fits.pl

http://hla.stsci.edu/

http://www.lightvortexastronomy.com/sample-image-data.html

 

Cheers mate, i'll give these a go this weekend

[Oddsocks]

43 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

i process on my TV so how it shows up on PC monitor screen and phones and whatnot is totally different

This will not be helping, the gamma of a normal flat-screen tv is way too high, unless it is specifically made as an sRGB display it is not really suitable, you would find it much easier to find consistency across mulitple devices if you post process using a good sRGB display.

If you are into terrestrial photography too and want to print hardcopies you might want to consider a wider gamut display that can handle Adobe RGB color space.

For post processing images that will be displayed on conventional TFT monitors, smartphones, iPads etc then a standard sRGB display, properly calibrated, is going go be much better than a TV for your post processing work.

[souls33k3r]

3 minutes ago, Oddsocks said:

This will not be helping, the gamma of a normal flat-screen tv is way too high, unless it is specifically made as an sRGB display it is not really suitable, you would find it much easier to find consistency across mulitple devices if you post process using a good sRGB display.

If you are into terrestrial photography too and want to print hardcopies you might want to consider a wider gamut display that can handle Adobe RGB color space.

For post processing images that will be displayed on conventional TFT monitors, smartphones, iPads etc then a standard sRGB display, properly calibrated, is going go be much better than a TV for your post processing work.

Couldn't agree more. Something that is in the back of my mind to do  

[MartinB]

You might have opened a can of worms!  I don't think Pixinsight is really about making images "pop".  High saturation, high contrast, heavy sharpening and selective touch ups are part of a creative process rather than one intended to bring out a faithful rendition of an object.  To make an image pop you do need good data with a high signal to noise ratio otherwise you just make the noise stand out!  Many imagers on here would be disdainful of the pop concept finding it artificial and intrusive.  Some people would prefer your subdued process to Carastro's (which I like a lot) more saturated and brighter version.  Even then, I wouldn't describe the redo as popped.   If you want some supreme examples of popped astroimages have a look at some of Rob Gendler's work taken with Rolls Royce kit and a pristine location.  The images are stunning but very much "in your face".  I think this is because he wants his images to have maximum impact on a general public rather than a purist astro audience.  I have to admit to being a bit of a popper and really like input from non astronomers on what appeals to them in an image.  I recently made a series of greetings cards and, when it comes to deep sky objects the more they are popped the more they seem to sell!  With good data I don't think there is much that can match PS and lightroom for popping and fizzing!  

 

[souls33k3r]

3 minutes ago, MartinB said:

You might have opened a can of worms!  I don't think Pixinsight is really about making images "pop".  High saturation, high contrast, heavy sharpening and selective touch ups are part of a creative process rather than one intended to bring out a faithful rendition of an object.  To make an image pop you do need good data with a high signal to noise ratio otherwise you just make the noise stand out!  Many imagers on here would be disdainful of the pop concept finding it artificial and intrusive.  Some people would prefer your subdued process to Carastro's (which I like a lot) more saturated and brighter version.  Even then, I wouldn't describe the redo as popped.   If you want some supreme examples of popped astroimages have a look at some of Rob Gendler's work taken with Rolls Royce kit and a pristine location.  The images are stunning but very much "in your face".  I think this is because he wants his images to have maximum impact on a general public rather than a purist astro audience.  I have to admit to being a bit of a popper and really like input from non astronomers on what appeals to them in an image.  I recently made a series of greetings cards and, when it comes to deep sky objects the more they are popped the more they seem to sell!  With good data I don't think there is much that can match PS and lightroom for popping and fizzing!  

 

Didn't know how else to define what i wanted to achieve so used the word "pop" (don't take it literally). The selection of word was poor, i know but the fact remains that i'm only looking for ideas to get better at processing. Other bits can be taken care of and i appreciate we all like what we do but i'm always open for suggestions, that's exactly how i learn. My only intention (ignore the image processing) was to bring out fainter details. I see many imagers taking images from within the LP skies and still produce great results, enough for me to drool over them. That's the result i'm after. So maybe i'm not even starting my journey the right way. Maybe a better question would be, what defines a good image. I know good data but we make do with whatever skies gives us. If there's anything in the processing i can integrate to make the nebulosity and the finer details of it stand out and see the details, i'll take that.