Jump to content

M45 Processing Help Needed

ashworthacca

Recommended Posts

ashworthacca

ashworthacca

Posted
Posted

Hi guys, this is my attempt at The Pleiades

5255053793_40e4a80552_z.jpg

M45 The Pleiades by ashworthacca, on Flickr

It is 27 lights at 5 mins ISO800 and 10 darks. I didn't apply the flats. Well, tonight was the first time ever that I've took some flats using Al's virtual light box and when I applied them the image was worse.:)

All stacked in DSS and processed in PS using levels and curves but I'm just not happy with the final result.

Does anyone fancy a play with my autosave from DSS. The 177mb fits file is HERE if anyone wants a try.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ashworthacca

ashworthacca

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This image was only cropped slightly to remove a little alignment issue. It was processed in DSS but with Flats applied this time. Still need some tips to get more out of it please!!

5258473248_7778b10d3e_z.jpg

Autosave 02 with flats levels ps-Edit by ashworthacca, on Flickr

I'll link to the 16bit tiff direct from DSS with no PP when it's uploaded to Dropbox in an hour or so. Looks like flats may have worked this time???

Regards

EDIT File HERE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashworthacca

ashworthacca

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What exactly is it that you aren't happy with. Prefer the 1st one BTW. In fact, it looks very good to me.

I don't know whether there is too much noise and I think there may be more nebulosity in there but I cant seem to tease it out.

It may be that I'm just lacking confidence in my processing skills.

Pleased you like it though. I also prefer the first, the second was just a test to see the effect of flats....first time I've ever used them.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JonH

JonH

Posted
Posted

Hi Martin,

I think that you're being a little hard on yourself as it's a really nice image. I've had a quick play with it, basically teasing out the highlights and boosting contrast in the dark areas with curves, but to be honest, it's not much of an improvement on your version, if at all.

Cheers,

Jon

post-18666-133877510147_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashworthacca

ashworthacca

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You are right to be conservative Martin. If you could combine Jon's brightness and contrast within the nebula with your background which is picking up the faint dust you would have a winner.

Thanks Martin, I'll keep working on it.......hopefully it will help me improve my processing skills if nothing else.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steppenwolf

steppenwolf

Posted
Posted

I too think you have done a fine job with this image and your conservative approach to stretching is the best way to go IMHO. Background sky is rarely soot black so don't risk clipping your data in the quest for an unrealistically dark background.

Despite its relative brightness, M45 isn't exactly a pushover to get right but you should be pleased with your result so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashworthacca

ashworthacca

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I too think you have done a fine job with this image and your conservative approach to stretching is the best way to go IMHO. Background sky is rarely soot black so don't risk clipping your data in the quest for an unrealistically dark background.

Despite its relative brightness, M45 isn't exactly a pushover to get right but you should be pleased with your result so far.

Thanks Steve.........and thanks for setting me on the right lines to getting PHD working:o This is the result from that night.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JonH

JonH

Posted
Posted

Keep working at it Martin, you'll get there in the end.

I've got next to no experience in astrophotography and despite spending most of my working day endlessly photoshopping stock images, I'm at the bottom of a very steep learning curve with regard to astro stuff. It's a whole new ball game. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RustyM

RustyM

Posted
Posted

Hi,

I took the liberty of extracting the RGB channels from your file Autosave_02_with_flats.tif and having a poke around...

Here are the statistics, normalized [0..1], for each channel:

  • _____________Red_______Green_____Blue_______
  • Mean......: 0.3235641 0.3241946 0.3241418
  • Median....: 0.3184558 0.3181811 0.3180591
  • AvgDev....: 0.0218235 0.0223919 0.0222751
  • StdDev....: 0.0464170 0.0491118 0.0487883
  • Variance..: 0.0021545 0.0024120 0.0023803
  • Minimum...: 0.0010529 0.0010529 0.0010529
  • MinPos....: 00348,000 00348,000 00348,000
  • Maximum...: 0.9961089 0.9961089 0.9961089
  • MaxPos....: 3254,0101 3260,0094 3258,0096

As you can see, there is very little difference in the data between channels.

When the color channels get close together like this you get an odd brown...aka: Mud.

So, although you have good data and a good processing skill set.....

I would think the muddy color mix from DSS is probably why you are not really satisfied with the results.

Some ideas...

I've never had much luck with color combination in DSS, awesome for aligning and stacking, not so much on the color side (or it could just be that I don't know how it should be done).

Have a look at the individual RGB frames and get a feel for the dynamic range of each.

If they have good dynamics before the go into DSS, they should have good dynamics coming out.

GIGO applies.

Excellent base...keep at it and you will surprise yourself.

Rusty.

Ps. Happy to have a look at the RGB frames if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashworthacca

ashworthacca

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Rusty, that makes sense......but my skills are at such a low level I'm not sure of the way forward. Saying that I'm going to reprocess in Nebulosity 2 to see if that changes things.

I'd be interested to hear what you think about the original subs. I can put them up on my server and send you the details to you can login via ftp? There is about 700mb of data. No worries if you are too busy though.......it is a busy time of the year for everyone.

Thanks again for the help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashworthacca

ashworthacca

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well after loads of help and great advice from Rusty I have finished processing M45. He was right that the original shot had a very muddy background and this was extremely difficult to get right in processing....the original data didn't help much.

Anyway here is the final version....not fully satisfied but with my limited skills it's the best I'm going to get.

5273267951_1dc77079a8_z.jpg

M45 The Pleiades by ashworthacca, on Flickr

Thanks for looking everyone and Merry Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PAC

PAC

Posted
Posted

IMHO I still prefer your first image. The nebulosity is much sharper and deeper (fainter bits more visible) and the contrast looks less harsh. Okay the noise is greater but you may need more subs (perhaps 50-60) or a cooled imaging chip to overcome that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashworthacca

ashworthacca

Posted
  • Author
Posted
IMHO I still prefer your first image. The nebulosity is much sharper and deeper (fainter bits more visible) and the contrast looks less harsh. Okay the noise is greater but you may need more subs (perhaps 50-60) or a cooled imaging chip to overcome that.

I agree....I found it extremely difficult in getting a cleaner background and keeping the nebulosity of the target, perhaps I should merge the 2 images use layer masks and keep the best bits of both.:)

No, I'll grab more subs and start again I think.

Thanks for the comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.