Is there a place in where professionals can edit/process my raw material?

[Fukencio]

Hello, I am kind on n00b on the Astrophotography processing world and I was wondering if my ugly final images are because of bad raw material (bad lights, darks flats, etc), or because bad stacking or because bad processing.

So it would be great to see what experienced people can do with my raw material. Just so see if im starting from crap material or if I just sucks processing it. I feels like there is a lot of information on my fit files that Im unable to extract and come up to the light.

I have good equipment and Bortle 4 sky with light pollution filters so my guess is that im doing a bad processing. But I need to confirm that so I can put the focus on improve one of the two parts (maybe both?!).

• Skywatcher Espirit 100 APO
• ASI071MC Pro
• Skywatcher AZ-EQ6
• Optolong L-eNhance Filter (for nebula)
• Optolong L-Pro Light Pollution (for galaxy)

So...my question is: Is there any place here in the forum or outside in where a Pro can take my raw files and process them to show me if the good data is there? or a service?

I attached some of my latests processed pics and here the link to google drive folder with my raw data if someone can take a look

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1eNU66DnO0uiyZJBJcBe4kLIfV8iv7lGr?usp=sharing

thank you in advance!

Edited May 11, 2022 by Fukencio

[iapa]

TBH I'd be proud to have produced these. 👏👏👏

Maybe posting details for each image, £ exposures, duration, ditto data on flats, darks, bias etc. What id you process with?

Perhaps more lights at a slightly shorter exposure to sharpen the stars - I am NOT good at processing though.

Edited May 10, 2022 by iapa

[teoria_del_big_bang]

If you are a Noob then you should be proud of those images, certainly better than my first images.

Quite often if you attach your raw files to a post somebody who is good at processing will have a quick go which may not give the absolute best final image as that takes a good few hours but they show at least the detail in there.

I am afraid that one thing people often do not let you know when taking up AP is that getting the data whilst is challenging, to say the least, is at best only half the story, and that processing can be harder to learn than the imaging itself.
 

There are so many tutorials about both free and ones you pay for for all the major processing software and it does take a lot of time and practice to get good at it.
But i do understand why you want to know the quality of your data and so perhaps the better approach would be to get some known good data and you process that and then you know you are working with good clean data.
There are several sites that offer this data and often images to show what the data can look like when processed well.
In fact there is some great data from the IKI observatory that was used for several competitions last year that is exactly what you need HERE

What processing software are you using ?

Steve

[Ags]

Great images!

[tomato]

If you post or give access to the calibrated and stacked images, or even the raw data, and associated calibration files, there are folks on SGL who will have a go at processing your data, but I agree with @iapa, for someone just starting out your processed images are very good.

[Fukencio]

1 hour ago, iapa said:

TBH I'd be proud to have produced these. 👏👏👏

1 hour ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

If you are a Noob then you should be proud of those images, certainly better than my first images.

Thank you folks! Im proud but feels like I can be even more proud haha. Maybe "ugly" was an exaggeration...they are regular (or maybe they are the best that I can get from this one shoot camera, I don't know)

@teoria_del_big_bang the IKI project is awesome! I will give it a shoot and play with their material! thank you! but that is the oposite case. I still need to validate my own data.

Here I uploaded my raw data for some targets and my edits:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1eNU66DnO0uiyZJBJcBe4kLIfV8iv7lGr?usp=sharing

hopefully someone can take a look and help me to understand.

thank you again!

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Just looking at some of your data (although I am far from being an expert on processing and still very much learning) but do you only have 2 x 300 Sec light frames for that rosette image ?

Also I only see two Darks at 300 secs and 11 at 180 seconds.
That's not really enough, if camera is fairly new and in good order I am not saying this will cause any major issue with final quality but personally I would be taking a minimum of 20 frames for each exposure time.
This may seem like a lot of work but if you keep all your imaging at same temperatures and gains (looks like you are working at a nominal of -10C although some frames seem to be up to -7C or so but I assume -10 was the actual setpoint target) the you can take darks anytime and make a library of all the exposure times you think you are likely to use, so maybe 60, 90, 120, 180, 240 and 300 seconds and take 20 to 30 of each and make masters from them. This can be done in a dark room with scope cover on anytime although I always try to do at night just to eliminate any possibility of stray light. These masters can then be used for at least 6 to 12 months, I think many use for even longer. So once done can forget about darks for quite a while. Flats do need taking (ideally anyway) each session.

Steve

Edited May 11, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[carastro]

Can’t see professionals processing your data without wanting payment.  But there are some VERY experienced imagers on here who would happily have a go.  
 

Carole

[gorann]

Hi

I think you are on the right track when it comes to processing, and I see no major problem in the images you posted except one thing - your short total integration time. I suggest that you stick to the same target for at least 5 hours, preferentially 10 hours or more. That will give you data with a S/R ratio that is good enough to produce a great image. I have to admit that I made this misstake myself when I started with astrophotogrphy. It was very tempting to image half a dozen objects in one night. Now I virtually never spend less that 1 - 2 nights on one object, even with my very fast (f/2) RASA 8 scopes. By the way, your choice of equipment is great and will not limit the quality of your images.

[ONIKKINEN]

These look great for starter images and looks like you got the hang of it already. You'll improve your processing over time as you get more data in and try new things, but i dont think you should be worried about something specific going wrong right now.

16 hours ago, Fukencio said:

I have good equipment and Bortle 4 sky with light pollution filters

• Optolong L-Pro Light Pollution (for galaxy

I would drop this filter for galaxy imaging and your sky conditions. Bortle 4 is great and you wont benefit much, if at all, from using the filter on galaxies. With the filter you lose much of the colour palette coming in and so will have a difficult time producing a real colour result in the end (might be impossible). You will also cut the light coming from the galaxy itself with the filter, since light pollution and average galaxy light shares much of the same spectrum. For galaxy imaging i think its better to go without a light pollution filter and just deal with the gradients in post.

16 hours ago, Fukencio said:

So...my question is: Is there any place here in the forum or outside in where a Pro can take my raw files and process them to show me if the good data is there? or a service?

Many folks do this here in either the beginners section or the dedicated imaging section under the right category (deepsky-lunar-planetary etc). If you have a specific image you are not sure about, post it there and attach the raw stack preferably in .TIF or .FITS format and see if anyone wants to have a look? I dont think i have ever seen a posted stack that has had no downloads at all, many will gladly have a look at your data for free. Sometimes i see that there are no replies for these kinds of threads, but most of the time its because the image posted was already good, which i think is the case with your work too.

[Fukencio]

4 hours ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

do you only have 2 x 300 Sec light frames for that rosette image ?

Yes, Rosette folder is not a good example, my bad. The most complete shots are in Sombrero (gain and powermate x2), Pleiades, NGC5128 folders. I'm going to take your advice to build a library of darks. It's a pain to do that during the same night. Thank you!

 

4 hours ago, carastro said:

Can’t see professionals processing your data without wanting payment.

I am willing to pay if they have a good portfolio, for sure.

1 hour ago, ONIKKINEN said:

I would drop this filter for galaxy imaging and your sky conditions.

Thank you! I will take your advice!

 

I added stacked files to the google drive folder to make life more easy. But they were stacked with ASIStudio/ASIDeepStack which I don't know if it the best choice (thats is why I did not upload it before)

 

thank you all again!

[Fukencio]

adding some numbers:

For the "Pleiades" project:

• 15 lights * 300 sec ( 01:15 hours )
• 20 darks * 300 sec ( 01:40 hours )
• 100 flats
• 100 bias

 

For the "sombrero powermate 2x" project:

• 20 lights * 90 sec ( 30 mins )
• 25 darks * 90 sec ( 40 mins )
• 100 flats
• 100 bias

For the "NGC5128 galaxy" project:

• 6 lights * 180 sec (18 min)
• 12 lights * 300 sec (1 hour)
• 11 darks * 180 sec (33 min)
• 3 darks * 300 sec (15 min) (but can take 01:40 hours more form "Pleiades" project) total 01:55 hours
• 100 flats
• 100 bias

"NGC3324 nebulosa" project:

• 9 lights * 300 secs ( 45min)

 

I know it is not the best time of exposures, but what a pro can do with this data?

[teoria_del_big_bang]

So far I see nothing really wrong with your data at all, looks pretty good (not an expert opinion though).

I am not sure if all your data is on that Google drive but I think further improvements would be:

• As @gorann states more data in the form of light frames really the key here.
• I notice some elongation of your stars, well on the Rosette frames anyway not looked at others (not a lot but its there). Are you guiding ?
  If not then maybe no need to take 300 sec exposures. You may get just as good final image with say 30 frames at 150 sec than 15 at 300 sec and half the elongation.
  Normally there is no need for 300 sec for OSC more used on NB stuff, but I hold my hand up I have no experience with OSC apart from early DSLR stuff so could be wrong.
  
• I am not saying strictly keep to the same gain and offset but if you can find what generally works best it helps in the long run to try and stick to one, or at least two or three combinations because darks and flats should be taken at same temperature, gain and offset (ideally) so means your darks library does not get out of hand.
  There is no real reason to keep changing the offset at all and it doesn't really matter what it is so long as it is enough to ensure the histogram is not clipped at the left hand side.
  There may be good reason why you are experimenting with gains but generally I think most cameras have a sweet spot of gain to use depending on what modes the camera can use.
• Take plenty of darks and make a master. From the directories I saw some only had 2 darks in them and at best 7 I think. As you are building a darks library take 20+, 50 probably more near the mark. Darks should ideally be same exposure, temperature, gain and offset as the lights you are going to calibrate with them.
• Again take plenty of frames for the  Flats, these are short exposures so taking plenty should not be an issue. I am not sure these are temperature dependent but if you have a cooled camera then it makes sense to do them at same temperature. They should also be done with the same gain and offset as the lights and with same setup as the lights, i.e. same camera rotation angle, same focus position so ideally do at end of each session.
• Bias, again more frames the better (to an extent) again same temperature gain and offset as lights. So if you settle on your gains and offsets you intend to use again you can have a library of master Bias frames that you can keep for 6 to 18 moths and reuse without making new ones. 

Steve

Edited May 11, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[carastro]

Nothing wrong with the data, it's very good, you probably just need practice at processing.  

I had a go at your NGC3324 (nice to have a go at  Southern hemisphere target).

I will also try your Centaurus A image always wanted to image that..

Carole 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by carastro

[carastro]

Not much improvement on Centaurus A, I am inclined to agree with Goran that it is the length and number of subs that might make a difference.

Having a go now on the Rosette.

Carole

[teoria_del_big_bang]

I have not had much time to look at much but did look quickly at the Rosette and my rendition is not great, but there were only 2 frames and no bias or darks in that directory so used them from another directory which may, or may not, help.
One thing I would say is that the background in your image to me looks too dark which probably means you are black clipping and losing some fine detail of the nebula.



My quick rendition is on the right and whilst the background maybe a little light see how there is so much more of the feinter stuff on the nebula itself.
More frames and maybe a better master flat (that could be me) then this has the makings of a really great image.

Wait for Carole's rendition I am sure that will be an improvement on mine 🙂 

Steve 

Edited May 15, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[carastro]

This is my process of the Rosette Nebula,  As said above more data and in some cases longer subs will give more data to bring out.  Having said that I have zero experience of CMOS cameras, but I do believe the subs are shorter than a CCD camera but the total exposure time is pretty much the same, so aim for several hours on one target.

Carole 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by carastro

[DaveS]

I'll add in passing that provided you don't break down your imaging train after each session (Which you shouldn't, apart from maintenance) Then once you've built a library of calibration frames they can do for 6 months or even more, maybe a year or two.

You don't have to waste imaging time with taking Darks either, they can be done during the day. Take the camera off, cap it and bung it in the 'fridge. Then run your Darks. Once done put it back on the telescope and leave it alone.

[iapa]

1 hour ago, DaveS said:

 

You don't have to waste imaging time with taking Darks either, they can be done during the day. Take the camera off, cap it and bung it in the 'fridge. Then run your Darks. Once done put it back on the telescope and leave it alone.

and take the darks at the same cooled temperature as you plan to use for lights.

I tend to do a library of 30-40 images at -10C,-15C,-20C

There is a presentation by Roger Glover (author of SharpCap) which covers theory and practical implications of temperature and gain values.

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by iapa

[Fukencio]

thank you very much folks! I really appreciated you taking your time to review and play with my data. I learned a lot with your comments and suggestions!