Was happy to help Andy. I wont go into processing workflow, its usually different for everyone. I think people assume the camera takes the image they see in magazines and online but thats rarely the case. We are spoilt for software that happily take jpegs from different cameras and combine them to get a high bit depth integrated image. All the "must have" gear gets you is shortcuts in the journey to an end result, but if you are patient you can get close with much more modest gear. Understanding what the gear components do for the process helps with part of the entire process effecting imaging time and sometimes certain image features.
As I said there are people doing awesome stuff with DSS & PS and I'd suggest you look for turoials that use those and run through them. Even if you already know the process the tutorial covers I find some tutorials explain the steps in different ways that give me a better understanding of why they are used at that point in the workflow and what to expect as a result. Not all steps present an obvious effect at the time but may when you reach the final image.
Already your method is good, its not too different from the versions I posted. I think your colour has a cast and you get the signal forward pretty well its not far from what APP did. But neither DSS nor APP have masking capabilties I'm aware of to allow isolating of parts of the image for more focused processing like I did with PI. I never could get my head around using DSS and doubt I could do as good a job.
These programs are just toolboxes and the hard part is understanding when and how to use specific tool and if that means you need to take the image between different programs in order to achieve a step in your workflow then thats fine. I bought pretty much all the astrophotography programs several years ago, couldn't get my head around most or get them to work with my raw dslr files properly. Some expected data only as video from an imaging cam, others wanted filtered mono data etc. But that was more reflective of how images were captured at the time than a problem with the programs.
My own astrophotography journey was hindered by my understanding of the terminology used and how little of my photography knowledge helped in any way. My first steps involved figuring a workflow That let me use my camera hows I wanted and take the files in and combine them then process (stretch) them and give me a single nicer image at the end. As I read and learnt and experimented I listed the steps all along the way so that I could follow them again later and "get a picture" as I referred to it. I grouped some times together as they were done in sequence together and I could workflow the list. Over time I could slot in more groups into the workflow as my gear changed (giving me more capture options) and my understanding changed. This workflow is a living document for me and continually changes. Its not perfect or even the correct way of doing things, but it is a repeatable process that allows me to "get an image" that I'm not ashamed of. Having a workflow I find gives me something to polish too. As software improvements and new features become available I can adjust a bubble in my flow chart, making that step slightly better than it was. Over time it all adds up to a happy final image. I know I go on about APP a lot but its made a lot of my workflow irrelevant and is such an idiotproof program I dont see any point anyone ever touching DSS really, its just so dead easy to get a picture with almost no effort. Its not in the same class as PI or other established programs, its reallly more akin to DSS and has more things to play with if you want and I would say its the first program everyone should have when starting astrophotography and ditch DSS totally. Of course one is free, the other isnt.
Andy, I recommend you break everything down in the workflow of getting "an image". Eg step 1: capture, step 2 process.
Now those steps get broken down into many smaller steps, And those in turn more smaller steps. Keep going eventually every little thing listed is something that can be improved. Never consider any of them as being perfect. For me My workflow now exists in two versions: one for solar system targets and the other for widefield starry views. I originally started trying to process nebula differently to clusters differently to galaxies etc But Over time I realised the same process can be used for them all and depending on the view parts of my workflow have little or no effect to the image but the same workflow works still nd I didnt need to branch steps for various targets. So start with your capture process step, you can do things like attach hanging weights under your tripod to help dampen vibrations that may result in bad wiggly frames. With DSLR the shutter and mirror flipping inside the camera can induce a wobble, so look for a way to lock the mirror up in the camera menu. Thats two small things in your whole workflow you can polish a little. Trust each little improvement will result in an improvement at the other end, which Is why I write down and modify my workflow, I can trust it as long as I follow it. Do you take darks and flats? How can they be improved? Are your camera settings ideal or using the camera sensor to its best? You can test and work out ideal/maximum settings for your gear...You can NOT get that information online, you have to test YOUR specific gear and prcoess the captures to determine where the sweet spot i to your eye in the final image.
Like I said, break it all down to every little tiny step and look for ways to improve those. Start with a high level broad workflow of what you do and over time break them down. Look online for articles on astrophotography and see if you are missing any broad steps and then look at how the smaller stepps are broken down, are they the same or different to yours? And can you try what they do and see what difference it makes to your final image. Every change you make I think must be considered in terms of improvement to the final image you end up with. That helps you decide practical concerns such as money. Better cameras are coming out all the time and yes you can upgrade and you can be confident of better results but how much better? I am confident it will never solve all the issues you (all of you) are having. Money wont solve all the problems just help you improve some areas (not always readily apparent) but not all improvements involve money either. When you understand why you are doing certain steps you can then start research that step for ways to improve it.
Wanna join my cult? lol
If you have the willingness to learn and try new things and have some patience you will find ways to move forward in anything you do. I consider myself fairly average with astrophotography, I have limitations most of you will hopefully never have so you should all be able to do far better with little effort. Andy's post I think shows a willingness to put aside ego and explore a path to improvement in his imaging. I hope I've helped, I dont have much patience for those how expect a silver bullet solution and think they know everything already so I wouldn't put the effort in to help them.