How hard is processing - it makes my head hurt

[beamer3.6m]

So I have returned to imaging after many years away.

My equipment:

AZ-GTI (EQ mode) and guided

Basic Tamron 18-135 lens

CLS lip filter (to alleviate street lights)

 

Image details

8 x 5 minute exposures

2 x darks (I messed these up so only have 2)

No flats (I just couldn't take them as they came out very very weird... I tried the t-shirt method and a laptop screen but rubbish!)

ISO 400

 

The VERY poor result of the Sadr region as processed through Siril!!!

HOW EMBARRASING IS THAT IMAGE

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by beamer3.6m

[tomato]

First off, look at your positives, good framing, focus and tracking. I'm not sure when you captured your subs, and I don't know have effective your filter would be on moonlight if you imaged when the moon was up, and 40 minutes isn't a massive integration time on an unmodded and uncooled DSLR. You do need the calibration frames.

I'm not familiar with Siril but I put your .png image through Pixinsight, Background neutralisation, StarXterminator to remove the stars, then Curves Transformation on the starless image before recombining them, then  NoiseXterminator on full power.

Fundamentally I would say you need more data.

I share your frustrations on image processing, I'm currently averaging 5-6 iterations on a supposedly finished image and ~10 hours at the computer.

 

[beamer3.6m]

Thank you Tomato... your help is appreciated.

I agree there are positives with my image and I am pleased with the tracking and framing etc.

I also appreciate that I do need the calibration frames... any tips of how best to get 'flats'?

I just need to work on my processing but in reality 'rubbish in, rubbish out' will always prevail.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

 As @tomato says take the positives thats what keeps us going forward in what can be a long road to success.

After 4 1/2 years since getting my first scope I still very much consider myself a newbie but I am getting there and proud of what I have learned in this short time, a lot with help from other SGL members I admit.

For what it is worth this is fundementally what I personally have percieved about AP (so it is my thoughts not necessarily all correct).

• Starting this hobby / obsession can be a nightmare giving you many headaches as some of the terms can be confusing. But over time and practice using your equipment as often as you can, even on poor seeing nights just to get used to taking data it does get much easier and in fact becomes second nature.
  As you have experience before then this may not be such an issue although I am sure during your absence a fair bit has changed, especially in equipment and probably moreso in the processing software available.
• I think to a certain extent the better the equipment the easier getting good data can get. Now, I agree many people do get great images from minimal equipment but I still think it is more difficult.
  For me getting a good sturdy mount well capable of carrying the payload I have and also getting a good scope, quality mono CCD and filters OR a quality modern OSC transformed my data. Unfortunately these days that does not come cheap and so often at least in the early days you have to go with what you have which may not be what you really desire but I would still say try to obtain the best equipment you can afford over time, using the 2nd hand market where you can.
• Fairly early on I was lucky to come into some extra cash due to working abroad for extended time. This was not a fortune but did help me buy some decent equipment fairly early on in my time in AP.
  Another thing I did learn early on is that despite getting what, for me, seemed good data was that that was probably less than half the story and that the road to getting great images, maybe even just good images, was the processing side, which at the very start I had not realised and thought just get the images stack them and stretch them a bit and voila hubble quality images. Wow was I wrong 🙂 
  For sure I have since spent the last 3 years or so developing my processing skills and still have a long way to go.
• Again good quality software for processing also really helps, and there are free options and some costing a fair bit, but I will not go into which to use as that really can cause a lot of discussion, but if you get into a good way of processing you are comfortable with stick with it and learn it well. 
• It can be a long road to sucess, not helped by poor skies with LP for many of us so great patience is required and the ability to not get downhearted and take heart from small improvement each session.
  Many sessions be prepared to get no useful data but if for instance you manage to learn how to do something, or set something up so it works correctly then that is a succesful session even if that took all night and you got no real useful data to process.
• Just do everything step by step. First of all you need good data, and often lots of it, but certainly good data so take time to get your data as good as possible.
• To an extent longer exposures can help depending on what camera you are using and how good your guiding is..
  Fortunately, with some of the more modern CMOS cameras there is no need for long (10 min +) exposures for most targets and more shorter exposure is just as good, often better if your guiding is not spot on. Also using shirter exosures allows you to be more aggressive with discarding bad images due to guiding errors, sky quality etc as it is easier to discared a few 180 sec exposures that one 20 min exposure.
  Good data I think is a must, no end of expensive processing software can create good final images from poor data.
• Once you think you are getting optimal data for your equipment and sky quality from your location then it is down to processing and that takes practice but SGL can help and posting your images, even sometimes your data then other members can often do wonders with it and give you some grat tips.
• As a final thing from my ramble is that do not give up on flats. For quality images you need quality calibration data, bias, darks, flats and dark flats, they are all important (I think so anyway). I too could never get good sky flats, I tried and tried and was never happy, to me they t hampered my early images rather than help them. When I got a good flat frame generator that really improved everythng for me. Look out for a good 2nd hand one or do some searching there are many other light panels out there which are pretty cheap people have used for flats.

Sorry for the long ramble but stick with it and never worry about asking for help on SGL, we all have to 🙂 

Steve

Edited September 16, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[tomato]

It’s another item to spend money on but I struggled with producing good flat frames until I got a light panel. You can take them with the tee shirt/ambient light method, but a flat panel with adjustable light output gives you more control.

[beamer3.6m]

what light panels do you guys use?

 

[teoria_del_big_bang]

I now use one of THESE from DSD but mostly so I can automate the flats in my sequencer and they are taken for each filter used in the session automatically at the end of session (I use NINA and it will close the panel turn on the LED light set it to the correct intensity for the filter and take a set mumber of exposures all whilst I am still sleeping 🙂 ).

If you do not need the automation then there are cheaper ones such as This one

Steve

[Budgie1]

For calibration frames with a DSLR, then concentrate on Bias, Flats & Flat-Darks. Obtaining Darks for a DSLR takes up precious imaging time and you won't be able to temperature match them with the lights because the camera isn't cooled. The Bias frames take the place of the Darks and work fine. 

THIS link in the DeepSkyStacker website may help to explain things.  

For the Flats, I just use my Samsung Tab with an app called "LightBox". The app creates a white screen and allows you to dim the light from the screen, but I use it on full power and use a t-shirt to defuse the light.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Budgie1
Added link to LightBox app