Practicing processing with used data.

[Olli]

Hi guys,

while I wait to take my first images I was wondering is there anywhere I can get raw data of targets that haven’t been processed yet, just so I can have a fiddle around with different types of software? As this seems to be the most complicated part of AP to me. If you could guide me to anything that may be helpful would be greatly appreciated.

 

Olli

[Ratlet]

Nebula photos on YouTube has some data you can work on and videos to work along with.

The only issue is it's really good data lol.

It's fun to work on it though since you can try different software on the same data and see how you get on.

[Olli]

4 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

Nebula photos on YouTube has some data you can work on and videos to work along with.

The only issue is it's really good data lol.

It's fun to work on it though since you can try different software on the same data and see how you get on.

Thank you, will have a look. I did think of that after I posted this might disappoint myself when  going to use my own haha. I just wanted to dabble my feet a bit with the software as I know there’s quite a lot to choose from.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

That's a great idea to get a jump start.
Processing images can be as difficult, or harder, than the acquisition so wasting no time getting some practice in can only help.
Also, doing it this way from a reliable source means you know the data is good and you are not wasting your time processing poor data.

In fact there is some great data from the IKI observatory that was used for several competitions last year on SGL and may be exactly what you need HERE

What processing software are you using ?

Steve

 

[Olli]

7 minutes ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

That's a great idea to get a jump start.
Processing images can be as difficult, or harder, than the acquisition so wasting no time getting some practice in can only help.
Also, doing it this way from a reliable source means you know the data is good and you are not wasting your time processing poor data.

In fact there is some great data from the IKI observatory that was used for several competitions last year on SGL and may be exactly what you need HERE

What processing software are you using ?

Steve

 

Hi Steve, 

 

that’s exactly why I wanted to practice first, and probably better to do it with good data. I am currently not suing any software at the moment ( not really sure where to start!) thank you for the link will have a look.

[Ratlet]

Nebula photos (I don't work for him, honest) is good cause he does various combos of software.

I like siril cause it's free and can do a photometric colour correction which gets your star colours sorted and makes the colours look real good.  Not as popular as some software, but very powerful and free

[teoria_del_big_bang]

1 hour ago, Olli said:

not really sure where to start!

Its not easy and its good to get to grips with one or two software packages rather than trying loads of them as you then never really get into any of them.

I guess it all depends on how much you invest (or intend to invest) in your imaging gear to how much you spend on the software.
Also to whether this is just dipping your toe into AP or its definitely for you and you intend to see it through as some software can be quite costly but I suspect some of the paid software might be much more versatile or easier to use than some free stuff (cannot comment fully as only tried one or two of them).

If you end up spending £1000's on gear then my reasoning was a couple of hundred on good processing software was well worth it.

When I was dipping my toe in the water I used Nebulosity. I had to pay a small fee but I think it may be free now. Its very easy to use some very good tutorials on the internet and is very good for pre-processing and stacking but a bit sparse on the post processing, however a very good starter and can create pretty good images very quickly.

I use Pixinsight and love it but it is not cheap and admittedly takes a bit of practice to get into it so maybe just one to consider when you are sure AP is definitely for you.

Another really popular one is Adobe Photoshop, not specifically astro but has all the tools in there. Again if you use this long term it can get quite costly as its a subscription but again if you are just testing the waters paying for a few months may not be too bad.

A lot of good imagers do use a combination of PI and PS.

A good alternative  to PS is Affinity Phot which is quite cheap and along the same lines as PS, they often have sales I think, I bought mine at half price some time ago.

I cant really say much about others as never used them, good luck on the journey 🙂 

Steve

Edited May 11, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[Olli]

42 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

Nebula photos (I don't work for him, honest) is good cause he does various combos of software.

I like siril cause it's free and can do a photometric colour correction which gets your star colours sorted and makes the colours look real good.  Not as popular as some software, but very powerful and free

Haha, I believe you.. I did have a quick look and he seems to have a lot of useful videos.

[Olli]

14 minutes ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Its not easy and its good to get to grips with one or two software packages rather than trying loads of them as you then never really get into any of them.

I guess it all depends on how much you invest (or intend to invest) in your imaging gear to how much you spend on the software.
Also to whether this is just dipping your toe into AP or its definitely for you and you intend to see it through as some software can be quite costly but I suspect some of the paid software might be much more versatile or easier to use than some free stuff (cannot comment fully as only tried one or two.

If you end up spending £1000's on gear then my reasoning was a couple of hundred on good processing software was well worth it.

When I was dipping my toe in the water I used Nebulosity. I had to pay a small fee but I think it may be free now. Its very easy to use some very good tutorials on the internet and is very good for pre-processing and stacking but a bit sparse on the post processing, however a very good starter and can create pretty good images very quickly.

I use Pixinsight and love it but it is not cheap and admittedly takes a bit of practice to get into it so maybe just one to consider when you are sure AP is definitely for you.

Another really popular one is Adobe Photoshop, not specifically astro but has all the tools in there. Again if you use this long term it can get quite costly as its a subscription but again if you are just testing the waters paying for a few months may not be too bad.

A lot of good imagers do use a combination of PI and PS.

A good alternative  to PSS is Affinity Phot which is quite cheap and along the same lines as PS, they often have sales I think, I bought mine at half price some time ago.

I cant really say much about others as never used them, good luck on the journey 🙂 

Steve

Thanks Steve, 

that’s quite a big selection I will have to have a look through all of them. I kind of spent a lot of money on my AP rig recently as its been something i wanted to do since I joined this forum in 2018 ( all have been bad influences haha😅) I guess as I’ve spent that much money it would always be worth matching it in software but I understand that even cheap  or inexpensive software is still as good. I have heard of Pixinsight haven’t looked at it properly will definitely check out the others.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

To be honest I love PI and many others do, but it seems to be a bit of a Marmite thing and there's also those that hate it and just don't get on with it including some very renowned imagers on this forum.

My own thoughts are is that it works on a totally different principle to long time popular software like Photoshop, and the newer Affinity Photo and many others and it may be difficult to adjust to how PI works and how you use it.
For me after some initial attempts with Nebulosity (which I still think is great to start) I bit the bullet and after trialing PI bought it despite not getting far with it in the trial period. And once it clicked how it works then came to love it.

I then tried Photoshop and I couldn't get to grips with it so dropped it as I didn't want to carry on paying each month. Again I put this down to my aging brain finding it difficult to use a different mindset from that used in PI that I would not say I had mastered but had started to get familiar with.

One thing about PI that is a bit of a Godsend but at the same time a bit of a PIA is that it is constantly being developed, which is a good thing. Mainly its small improvements to processes that do help improve things and are almost unnoticed but occasionally they drop a new process or there is some major change which is fine but that then makes a lot of older tutorials you may find obsolete, They do not delete the obsolete processes so the tutorials still work but really you should be doing the processing using newer methods as this either provides more options or just gives better results. 

Just be aware if you do try PI do not judge it on the month trial period (or whatever the period is) its nowhere near long enough, but I would really recommend Adam Block's Tutorials,  there are quite a lot of his stuff free on the net but some of the better ones are paid for, and again not exactly pennies, but I found them really useful.

Steve

[ONIKKINEN]

I could attach some raw stacks if you're interested?

Im afraid i dont have much good and easy to process data and most of my stacks are flawed in some way that may be difficult to work around, but that might be the case for your own datasets too at first so might be good practice.

[Rallemikken]

1 hour ago, Ratlet said:

Nebula photos (I don't work for him, honest) is good cause he does various combos of software.

I like siril cause it's free and can do a photometric colour correction which gets your star colours sorted and makes the colours look real good.  Not as popular as some software, but very powerful and free

Nico is a very versatile all-rounder. Highly recommended. As for software: Stick to what's free and (if possible) open-source in the beginning. Siril is an awesome piece of code, but it took me a whole year to master it. Today i am able to tweak the settings in the different stages of stacking in relation to what I want. I know what works on star clusters, and I know what works on galaxies, and on nebulas. The last revelation to me was the inbuildt photometry functions. They make me able to throw away more of those frames that drags the average result DOWN! Tip-of-the-day: Learn to preprocess and do photometry, then take your time and review the frames before stacking.  It's basically just a matter of inserting a couple of "#" in a script....  When stacking is finished and basic image processing is done in Siril (don't overdo it; a few of the routines are a bit crude) you take your 32-bit tif into Gimp, and finishes off. No need for Photoshop, Gimp is far superior, but has a steeper learning curve.

[scotty38]

I also recommend using the data from this very site, easy to access and very good quality.  If your aim is to test/learn some software then the last thing you need is the debate whether it's the data or your processing that's creating any issue you may have. Start with good data and eliminate that doubt.

[Budgie1]

As Steve has already said, the IKI Observatory data on here is really good to practice with and you can see what others have done with the same data.

When I started back into astrophotography in 2020, I was using Photoshop CS3 for processing because I already had the software. Although it's an old version, it still works fine and I thought I was getting some good results from it. Then I went for the 45 day trial version of Pixinsight and, after following some tutorials, the results were so much better than anything I could get with PS, so I bought it. It's not the easiest to find your way around to start with but, using YouTube tutorials and advice on here, I got my basic work-flow sorted and I learn something new each time I use it.   

I tend to agree with Steve in that, I've spent £1000's on getting a good mount, scope, camera and all the ancillaries needed to capture the best images I can. So why would I skimp on the software which produces the final image?

I'm not for one second suggesting that PixInsight is the best software out there, because it's not. The best software is the one which you're happiest using and enables you to produce the best final image from your data. There are experienced astrophotographers on here who get exceptional results with PS, GIMP or the likes of Star Tools & APP. 

It doesn't matter which software you choose, as long as you're comfortable using it. There will always be a learning curve but your imaging & processing techniques will improve over time and you'll always pick up hints & tips and try new things to improve your results.

I still can't believe how much my images have improved in the last two years, and I still have a lot to learn!