Who wants to play with my data....

[chubster1302]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

I can't download the data either.  For what its worth, I will say that the data looks very good.  And you have to keep this in mind...In my opinion, you are attempting one of the most unforgiving and difficult tasks in all of astrophotography...broadband nebulae....and with a DSLR.  Not an easy thing to pull off well. I don't know what your sky is like, but if its anything like mine, you need boat loads of data.  Also, for the lack of a better analogy, we all have internal sliders--expectations of how we think the image should look.  These internal sliders can get out of whack.  A perusal of my early images will reveal my unwilling internship at Disney, or Looney Tunes....I could not understand why I was creating cartoons, while the same accomplished imagers who have toyed with your data produced realistic "nebulous" looking images.  And THAT was with narrow band!, which I personally find much easier.   Even so, I have color mottle quite frequently with narrowband, which I attribute to LP--multiply problems (of any sort) by at least 10x with broadband.  So I think you are headed in a pretty good direction.

It is a good think to play with slider to see what they do.  Don't forget, it is often that how multiple sliders work in unison that is important (and how multiple sliders in different tools work in unison).  The best way to learn this IS through playing with them (with a eye on theory as well--documentation on what they represent).  I know it's not much help, but the following should be.  Great advice from Olly..."leave 10% of the image on the table" (It might have been 5%--can't recall).  This will be a natural check on the propensity to cross the threshold into cartoon land (which can happen all of a sudden.  Suddenly, the Rubicon is a mile behind you. Coupled with this gem is realizing that the slightest change in an image--the smallest tightening of edges, or the slimmest increase in dynamic range between background and nebula can radically change an image.  Combining very small incremental changes builds an image.  The goal is to render a nebula that appears to be floating in space, with a color palette that draws you in to the faintest details, as oppose to blinding you with chroma.  This can happen quickly, much like a giant slab of rock hanging by a thread from some precipice can be made to break free and plummet by the addition of a single grain of sand dropped from a bird's foot.

One last bit of advice.....WALK AWAY (Now!!! Run!!! And drop the camera in the nearest waste bin!).  Just kidding (sort of).  But do walk away...you will be amazed how different an image looks the next morning, or even an hour later.  Its akin to editing your own writing.  Nothing is better for an essay or story then to spend a day or two in the drawer.  I think its like IR that builds up in some cameras that need a pre-flash to clean out the signal (older technology) --Our brains need a break, a shift, to wash away the conceptions we build into them.  Not sure why, but every time I have come back to an image, I find I can improve it.

Finally--space is not black, stars are not like colorful diodes, brightness steals color (and curving down brightness enhances it), and nebula are rarely like a barrier reef community in vibrancy.  Somehow, the reef world does not look like a cartoon. Or maybe it does, but for some reason that is OK.  But an astro-photograph with the same definition and palette most likely would.

Rodd

Looking at the plot in siril I don't think the data was that good, but it was all I've be able to get from my location in weeks. Still need to add more subs.

 

To be honest I didn't even realise IC 1396 was a broadband target, It just happened to be in the right place....but, I like a challenge and if i can nail that as good as poss then the "easier" targets should be a breeze. Hmm 🫣

I do get the whole walk away philosophy, even if I have been sitting here at 3am still looking at data, when I have to be up at 6am 🙈😀 

[wimvb]

1 hour ago, chubster1302 said:

the frustrating bit is not really knowing what effect early editing decisions may have down the line, if at all, and there is always the, just because of the lack of knowledge...."what if I did that first" scenario.

That knowledge is called experience, and there's only one way to get it.

I don't know Siril, but many a masterpiece in AP has been produced using PS, so the software is capable, and there are tutorials available. I believe that Adam Block still has some on his web site, probably behind a pay wall.

Early on in my AP adventure, I chose to buy PixInsight, and to this day it's the only software I use. Any software assumes some basic workflow and is based on some general principles. Some of these you already know from your other photography work; highlights, mid range, shadows. In AP terms, high brightness (high signal to noise ratio), mid range and background (low signal to noise ratio). Then there is luminosity (luminance) and colour (chrominance), familiar if you do LRGB imaging. In PI, you also have "wavelets", which are levels of detail (similar to harmonics in sound, or Fourier series in signal processing). If you keep such principles in mind while you process images, individual steps make more sense.