Iris Nebula - Old Data, New Tricks

[Xiga]

This data dates back to April 2020. In my mind it was basically a gonner, as i could never process it properly. I tried a few times to process it, but i was always disappointed with how it came out. Try as i might, i could never get the dust to really stand out, and any attempt to do so would just lead to the image breaking down, fast. I just figured i needed faster optics and darker skies, so in the end I threw the head up and deleted all of the lights, lol. Thankfully though, I had the sense to at least hang on to the stacks. 

This was taken with a Qhy163c. Truth be told, i never really liked it, as i could never take a good flat with it for some reason, so i sold it soon after getting it (I then moved on to a Qhy9m, before getting my current camera, a Qhy268m). So for this I had 3 stacks (shot on 3 separate nights) but one of them was shot during a full moon so it was no good. That left me with 2 stacks, each one shot on different nights and from different locations (Bortle 4 and Bortle 5/6). On both nights, the scope was pointing quite close to a street light, one of which was the old sodium vapour type, and on the other it was one of the newer LED ones. So when i stacked the 2 stacks the resulting gradient was truly horrible! Yet another reason why i always assumed the data was only fit for the bin. 

Well, fast forward 2.5 years and i thought i'd have one final crack at this, now we have amazing tools like StarXTerminator and NoiseXTerminator available.

Capture details:

Qhy163c

9.5 hrs (570 x 60s )

SW 80ed, HEQ5-Pro

Stacked in APP, processed in PS. Downscaled to 75%. 

 

Fairly happy with how it came out in the end, for what basically amounts to a bonus image!

C&C welcome, and thanks for looking 🙂 

[old_eyes]

Very nice image. Could you post your previous version so we could do a side by side. It would be really interesting to see the improvement from better tools, and your own developing skills no doubt.

[Xiga]

36 minutes ago, old_eyes said:

Very nice image. Could you post your previous version so we could do a side by side. It would be really interesting to see the improvement from better tools, and your own developing skills no doubt.

Thanks! I never actually produced a finished image first time around, i was that unhappy with it. But i did find the version below, which seems to be the most recent one i had before i gave up on it. 

Pretty bad, i know! 😅 🙈

[andy fearn]

19 minutes ago, Xiga said:

Thanks! I never actually produced a finished image first time around, i was that unhappy with it. But i did find the version below, which seems to be the most recent one i had before i gave up on it. 

Pretty bad, i know! 😅 🙈

Wow, what an improvement. very nice.

[Lee_P]

Big difference, nicely done!

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Wow Ciarán, that's an incredible difference.
Do you think this is down merely just to new tools or has the operator improved considerably too ??? 😁

Steve

[Elp]

That's an excellent difference. My 20+ hours yielded a similar result to your first and I know there's more data there. In my instance the flats ruined pretty much every session so I can't push it very much. I found however using GIMP I could push much higher than I could in PS, maybe worth exploring though your new one looks quite natural and not over pushed.

[Xiga]

1 hour ago, andy fearn said:

Wow, what an improvement. very nice.

Thanks Andy!

1 hour ago, Lee_P said:

Big difference, nicely done!

Cheers Lee 👍

1 hour ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Wow Ciarán, that's an incredible difference.
Do you think this is down merely just to new tools or has the operator improved considerably too ??? 😁

Steve

Hehe, yes fair point! The operator has definitely learned a few new controls since last time 😋 Even so, there's simply no way I could have made the new version without StarXT and NoiseXT, as the workflow relies so heavily on them. 

15 minutes ago, Elp said:

That's an excellent difference. My 20+ hours yielded a similar result to your first and I know there's more data there. In my instance the flats ruined pretty much every session so I can't push it very much. I found however using GIMP I could push much higher than I could in PS, maybe worth exploring though your new one looks quite natural and not over pushed.

Bad flats are hard to overcome for sure. I've heard good things about AstroFlat Pro though, might be worth looking into.

Thanks for the feedback. Good to hear it still looks fairly natural, as I did finish it very late last night. I knew I was pushing it quite hard so there's always the risk that you end up going too far and not noticing! 

[ollypenrice]

Very nice, especially the dust. It has just the right texture to my eye.

Olly

[gorann]

Yes, a very nice image Ciarán!

I think quite a few of us have these mediocre images in stock that now can find new life with the new tools!

[old_eyes]

On 04/12/2022 at 10:05, Xiga said:

Thanks! I never actually produced a finished image first time around, i was that unhappy with it. But i did find the version below, which seems to be the most recent one i had before i gave up on it. 

Pretty bad, i know! 😅 🙈

Well you certainly got an improvement! The latest version in much better. The trick now, in my experience, is to understand what you did differently. I have been reprocessing some of my older images, and they are better, but since I did not keep the process history, I don't know whether it is being more selective in data, a software improvement, or me improving my eye and 'touch'.

[Xiga]

On 04/12/2022 at 15:21, ollypenrice said:

Very nice, especially the dust. It has just the right texture to my eye.

Olly

Merci Monsieur! The main objective of the re-process was all about the dust so that's good to hear 👍

On 04/12/2022 at 15:58, gorann said:

Yes, a very nice image Ciarán!

I think quite a few of us have these mediocre images in stock that now can find new life with the new tools!

Absolutely Gorann! It's almost like having new data isn't it? Happy reprocessing 🙂

On 06/12/2022 at 15:25, old_eyes said:

Well you certainly got an improvement! The latest version in much better. The trick now, in my experience, is to understand what you did differently. I have been reprocessing some of my older images, and they are better, but since I did not keep the process history, I don't know whether it is being more selective in data, a software improvement, or me improving my eye and 'touch'.

Seeing as I use PS, what I do is I just make a new layer every time I make an adjustment. So I can always see a history of all the major changes I've made. It does end up in a huge Tif file though, and because of the max file size of 4GB there is a limit to the number of layers you can have (and which I usually end up maxing out) but it's good enough for my current workflow. P.I users definitely have an advantage here, but that requires using P.I 😋

[jjosefsen]

Wonderful image! Nice processing for sure. Thanks for sharing. 

[Xiga]

10 hours ago, jjosefsen said:

Wonderful image! Nice processing for sure. Thanks for sharing. 

Thanks jjosefsen 🙂