My first DS Image (Advice)

[Felias]

34 minutes ago, AstroMuni said:

You are correct about a modded camera being more sensitive to IR, Ha etc, so if you were shooting with an unmodded camera before then you should see a bigger difference in nebula vs galaxies when you switch to a modded camera. Again if the galaxy has a high IR emission then you would see that difference there too.

Its just that in my experience nebulae (as their name suggests), are nebulous 🙂 and need a lot more Post processing to extract details. If you have right software AND the skills - GO FOR IT But galaxies and globular clusters are easier targets IMO and this is based entirely on my experience as I climb the steep curve of AP. My journey can be seen in the link in my signature.

Yes, of course, faint nebulae are tricky, and I don't have much experience yet. But from my limited understanding, I thought that a Z73 with a modded camera would make widefield nebulae (especially the bright ones like NA, Lagoon, Eagle, etc) an easier target for capturing the data than "small" galaxies these nights without astronomical darkness.

[Iem1]

It looks like it is, il see what settings I can find. Il attach a picture from DSS, I have not edited anything in DSS in the picture below

Thank you bud, its good to have guidance when doing these things

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by Iem1

[Malpi12]

1 hour ago, Iem1 said:

(I notice my images seem to come out of DSS looking already stretched?

Very interesting topic, thanks, especially the bit about darks vs, bias, which I have also found and thought I was doing something silly with my darks !

I am a beginning beginner at imaging (still only a camera on fixed tripod) so I hesitate to jump in but -
a couple of things caught me out in DSS  which may be relevant.
There is a box to be ticked to autosave your stack, which saves it without any processing.
Then there is another setting to save the picture with the processing /stretchings applied into the saved tiff OR embedded in the tiff but not applied. (Which confused me! I still dont understand what it means by embedded !)
They are in there somewhere, it was a while go so I'll go back and have a look and post again if you have not yet found  them.

 

[Malpi12]

here we go,
stacked only,no stretch etc. via autosave :

 

To apply (or not) the stretch to the saved picture.

 

[Felias]

2 hours ago, Malpi12 said:

Very interesting topic, thanks, especially the bit about darks vs, bias, which I have also found and thought I was doing something silly with my darks !

I am a beginning beginner at imaging (still only a camera on fixed tripod) so I hesitate to jump in but -
a couple of things caught me out in DSS  which may be relevant.
There is a box to be ticked to autosave your stack, which saves it without any processing.
Then there is another setting to save the picture with the processing /stretchings applied into the saved tiff OR embedded in the tiff but not applied. (Which confused me! I still dont understand what it means by embedded !)
They are in there somewhere, it was a while go so I'll go back and have a look and post again if you have not yet found  them.

 

Yes, I don't even bother saving manually from DSS, I just go to the "lights" folder and work with the autosave.tif file in there.

Iem, that screenshot seems fine, if you have not saved the image applying DSS adjusments, as Malpi says, it should be ok. 👍

[Iem1]

Ah, I see! Thank you for your help, it makes sense now..I also see a few tutorials where some people use the pre stretched image and their DSS give them a visible image to potentially work with too.

so, this should be the stacked image with zero processing done to it? (It is the autosave file that is added automatically after stacking);

Autosave.tif

I should not be comparing my own data to that of others, but I feel like I am missing a lot of detail and clarity in my images. Maybe the culmination of not so dark skies and the interference of dew is holding it back a little. Room to progress!

Need to learn how to bring out some better colours in processing too!

[Felias]

8 minutes ago, Iem1 said:

Ah, I see! Thank you for your help, it makes sense now..I also see a few tutorials where some people use the pre stretched image and their DSS give them a visible image to potentially work with too.

so, this should be the stacked image with zero processing done to it? (It is the autosave file that is added automatically after stacking);

Autosave.tif 168.32 MB · 0 downloads

I should not be comparing my own data to that of others, but I feel like I am missing a lot of detail and clarity in my images. Maybe the culmination of not so dark skies and the interference of dew is holding it back a little. Room to progress!

Need to learn how to bring out some better colours in processing too!

Ah, yes, this is it! Much better, I'll give it a go if my daughter lets me, but this one should be easier to pull out the nebulosity.

[Iem1]

Thank you felias, it is encouraging to see what can be done given some practice

I might head out and see if can shoot the Pac man nebula, last clear night for a while here...but I have been out the last 4/6 nights with around 4 am finishes. Starting to take its toll

[Felias]

6 minutes ago, Iem1 said:

Thank you felias, it is encouraging to see what can be done given some practice

I might head out and see if can shoot the Pac man nebula, last clear night for a while here...but I have been out the last 4/6 nights with around 4 am finishes. Starting to take its toll

I know. I did two in a row the past weekend and that was enough hill climbing for me this week. A three-year old at home doesn't help, of course. 😅

I did a fast one while she has been quiet. Much better, I think:

[Felias]

I kept thinking about the colours that you mentioned, and I tried to enhance them a bit. I don't know if it's better or worse, but here's another slighlty modified version after tampering with the saturation:

[Iem1]

4 hours ago, Felias said:

I kept thinking about the colours that you mentioned, and I tried to enhance them a bit. I don't know if it's better or worse, but here's another slighlty modified version after tampering with the saturation:

It looks great! Nice job, gives me an idea of what is possible. Thank you

[Iem1]

Another question, should you stack images that have slightly different brightness? I have some exposures that are decent and dark, and a series of others that are slightly brighter in general due to the moon appearing from behind trees etc 

Will using the slightly brighter ones ruin the stack or does DSS deal with it?

[Felias]

25 minutes ago, Iem1 said:

Another question, should you stack images that have slightly different brightness? I have some exposures that are decent and dark, and a series of others that are slightly brighter in general due to the moon appearing from behind trees etc 

Will using the slightly brighter ones ruin the stack or does DSS deal with it?

Not an expert about this, but I normally stack all. This can create gradients, which the flats may correct. If they don't, there are ways of addressing this, depending on the software you use.

[Malpi12]

7 hours ago, Iem1 said:

so, this should be the stacked image with zero processing done to it? (It is the autosave file that is added automatically after stacking);

Autosave.tif 168.32 MB · 3 downloads

 

Yes that looks about right for the  "argh there is nothing there, did I point in the right bit of sky" and reach for the Plate Solve on the stars !!

 

6 hours ago, Felias said:

I know. I did two in a row the past weekend and that was enough hill climbing for me this week. A three-year old at home doesn't help, of course. 😅

I did a fast one while she has been quiet. Much better, I think:

Wow nice one ! what software / processing/ workflow ?

This is my first simpleish attempt at @Iem1 's tif file  in Gimp. I assumed that the primary colour of the emission is deep red  Ha, so best to use plain red visually ?

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Malpi12

[Felias]

8 hours ago, Malpi12 said:

Yes that looks about right for the  "argh there is nothing there, did I point in the right bit of sky" and reach for the Plate Solve on the stars !!

 

Wow nice one ! what software / processing/ workflow ?

This is my first simpleish attempt at @Iem1 's tif file  in Gimp. I assumed that the primary colour of the emission is deep red  Ha, so best to use plain red visually ?

 

All done in Photoshop. I started using Gimp, but I never quite got the hang of it. Then my employer let me use a spare PS license. 😇 You have pulled the nebulosity nicely, perhaps there's too much contrast? The darkest regions are never completely black. Halpha is red, true, but you have lost star colour this way. You lose some I think when the camera is modded (correct me if I'm wrong, I have never had one), but it's not a mono picture and there's definitely a difference between the more yellowish and bluish stars in my processing (especially in the second version, https://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_2021_07/Autosave-Edit2.jpg.003fd512ed7bb76fba9446da7022f722.jpg.) Look at the top right corner, or at the pair of red/blue bright stars to the left of the head of the Pelican (the blue is 57-Cygni, with a surface temperature higher than 15,000 K).

Also, you have changed the aspect ratio of the photo, it's compressed in the horizontal direction.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Felias

[Malpi12]

51 minutes ago, Felias said:

Also, you have changed the aspect ratio of the photo, it's compressed in the horizontal direction.

Argh ! Well spotted, thanks, that is a big mistake and was not supposed to happen.
I have found the error - a box "Preserve aspect ratio" in Irfanview re-size had become un-ticked.

Nicely done on PS, I see a lot of good work done with it but for my little efforts the cost can not be justified (similar for PI !)

Thanks for comments, yes I see what you mean and shall watch out for that next time round. I did notice the stars getting less nice the more I fiddled with the red !
All good for practice in Gimp and thanks to @Iem1 for offering up the tif  image.
 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Malpi12

[Iem1]

Nice work guys! Good info here :

I managed about 1 hr 30 mins of 30 second exposures at ISO 800 on the pac man nebula last night, It was almost a full moon and a very humid night..my equipment was very damp (next to a lake too with mist) ..I just about ticked every box of "Don't do this" while shooting

Im not sure if the data I got is useable, currently trying to bring Pac man out of the shadows with stretching, but man it is taking some stretching. I had to use the "pre stretched" image from DSS to give myself a chance, Il show you how far I have got below. It is not a completed image, just at the point where it is acually visible at the expense of the background...maybe a mask needed. hmm. Or remove the stars with Starnet? Hopefully I can save it.

Untouched Autosave version from DSS if anyone wants to try save Pac man  Autosave.tif:

 

[Timoskar]

On 17/07/2021 at 16:44, Iem1 said:

Hey guys,

I captured my first images of a deep sky object last night after failing several times previously to locate targets.

I would love some feed back on the image from experienced Astrophotographers so I can continue to learn and progress. I did not manage to capture much data, I spent about 45 minutes taking 80 second exposures at ISO 1600 ..I chose 80 seconds to be on the safe side, assuming my manual polar alignment and being unguided would start to have an impact.  The 1600 ISO seemed a little too steep, I much preferred the results with 3 minute exposures at 800. Unfortunately less than halfway through my 3 minute 800 ISO imaging the sun started to rise and ruined the session -.- 

Important lessons were learned and it was a lot of fun, even with only managing ~18 minutes of useable data!

Here is the Andromeda Galaxy, x6 3 minute exposures at ISO 800 with x2 Dark frames at same settings (Camera battery died during), taken with an Astro modified Canon 600D, Sky guider pro and WO Zenithstar 73 + field flattener . Minimal processing done in GIMP.

I have a flattener but notice the stars around the edge seem a bit off...But I think this is most likely due to my polar alignment. 

Any feedback welcome, cheers guys

 

Andromeda (Final Image - Large).tif 309.46 MB · 5 downloads   

 

I’d be over the moon with that picture! So to speak, hope me and my Son can take some similar ones 👍

[Felias]

2 hours ago, Iem1 said:

Nice work guys! Good info here :

I managed about 1 hr 30 mins of 30 second exposures at ISO 800 on the pac man nebula last night, It was almost a full moon and a very humid night..my equipment was very damp (next to a lake too with mist) ..I just about ticked every box of "Don't do this" while shooting

Im not sure if the data I got is useable, currently trying to bring Pac man out of the shadows with stretching, but man it is taking some stretching. I had to use the "pre stretched" image from DSS to give myself a chance, Il show you how far I have got below. It is not a completed image, just at the point where it is acually visible at the expense of the background...maybe a mask needed. hmm. Or remove the stars with Starnet? Hopefully I can save it.

Untouched Autosave version from DSS if anyone wants to try save Pac man  Autosave.tif:

 

Well, I couldn't resist, since I have never imaged the Pacman. This is just levels/curves plus some fiddling with contrast, saturation, etc. All tools that are available in Gimp, though it may be less intuitive than PS. Also did a bit of star reduction, which I wouldn't know how to do in Gimp:

 

There are some horizontal bands, probably due to the camera sensor (I get those sometimes). Flats should help in removing them; if not, some cosmetic touches would be needed.

[Iem1]

9 minutes ago, Felias said:

Well, I couldn't resist, since I have never imaged the Pacman. This is just levels/curves plus some fiddling with contrast, saturation, etc. All tools that are available in Gimp, though it may be less intuitive than PS. Also did a bit of star reduction, which I wouldn't know how to do in Gimp:

 

There are some horizontal bands, probably due to the camera sensor (I get those sometimes). Flats should help in removing them; if not, some cosmetic touches would be needed.

Looks significantly better than anything I could have produced

Good job! I think the quality of the data is pretty poor too, my guess would be that I needed to have used longer exposures in better conditions so less stretching would be required, but still, given just how damn humid and damp it was out, I am amazed we could even see it...Water was literally trickling down my rig (a rig without a dew heater). I thought it was fruitless

[Felias]

43 minutes ago, Iem1 said:

Looks significantly better than anything I could have produced

Good job! I think the quality of the data is pretty poor too, my guess would be that I needed to have used longer exposures in better conditions so less stretching would be required, but still, given just how damn humid and damp it was out, I am amazed we could even see it...Water was literally trickling down my rig (a rig without a dew heater). I thought it was fruitless

Thanks! All considered, I would be happy with such data myself; I haven't had much experience imaging nebulae yet. Also, the sun is trailing these days too close to Cassiopeia, so it's not dark enough to give good contrast. It should be easier later in the summer.

[AstroMuni]

15 hours ago, Iem1 said:

It looks great! Nice job, gives me an idea of what is possible. Thank you

I use Siril which has a Photometric colour calibration tool. Give it a shot as that will add colours based on known data such as NOMAD.

[Malpi12]

8 hours ago, Iem1 said:

Or remove the stars with Starnet?

Untouched Autosave version from DSS if anyone wants to try save Pac man  

Thanks, not heard of Starnet before, downlading now !

Thanks for the tif, Saving Private Pacman  is a bit of a challenge for my Gimp skills, especially the moon? gradient in the bottom left.
This is my 3rd iteration (you dont want to see the first  2 !!) I have gone for the dark sky look again, tried not to be as severe as I did previously with the NAN,  but I'm still having bother keeping star colours.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Malpi12

[Iem1]

21 minutes ago, Malpi12 said:

Thanks, not heard of Starnet before, downlading now !

Thanks for the tif, Saving Private Pacman  is a bit of a challenge for my Gimp skills, especially the moon? gradient in the bottom left.
This is my 3rd iteration (you dont want to see the first  2 !!) I have gone for the dark sky look again, tried not to be as severe as I did previously with the NAN,  but I'm still having bother keeping star colours.

You done really well considering how bad the data is

[Iem1]

My first week of DS imaging has been a blast! Captured two images I am quite happy with (for now!) and I will be trying Pac man again asap  

Thanks again for all the help guys!

 

Andromeda Galaxy

 

The Na and Pelican nebula