#1  
Old 24-09-2014, 09:00 PM
traveller's Avatar
traveller (Bo)
Not enough time and money

traveller is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,133
Noisy M20 (with M21)

Warm nights means warm sensors and more noise.
18 x 300 sec at 1600 ISO with equal darks.
ED80 on EQ6 with modded Canon 1100D (UV/IR clip in with UHC filter)
DSS and PS.
I need to take some cooler darks to match the sensor temp on the light frames. The stars are also slightly bloated due to poor seeing on Monday night.
Comment welcome.
Bo
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (M20 Trifid 220914low.jpg)
186.9 KB64 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24-09-2014, 10:53 PM
Tony_ (Tony)
Registered User

Tony_ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 465
G'day Bo,

Your image is pretty good - just needs different processing.
It's a too purple (needs more green) and you can reduce the star bloating a little with processing. I played with it a bit and did this. With more time it could still be better.

Regards,
Tony.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (xxM20 Trifid 220914low.jpg)
196.5 KB41 views
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24-09-2014, 11:21 PM
cometcatcher's Avatar
cometcatcher (Kevin)
<--- Comet Hale-Bopp

cometcatcher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloudy Mackay
Posts: 6,542
I agree with Tony. It's a nice image.

I'll post some screen grabs on the processing I did. Basically I just even up the RGB channels and the colour balance becomes more neutral. I also ran a minimum filter over the bright stars using the colour range tool with highlights selected to reduce bloat. It's a different look to Tony's but I guess we all process things a bit differently. The original is the first image.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Clipboard01.jpg)
192.4 KB26 views
Click for full-size image (Clipboard02.jpg)
191.0 KB35 views
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25-09-2014, 09:31 AM
Tony_ (Tony)
Registered User

Tony_ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 465
Yours is better Kevin. I only spent about 2 minutes on it plus I need to improve my processing skills.

Bo - it is quite a good image once it is processed better.

Regards,
Tony.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25-09-2014, 10:34 AM
traveller's Avatar
traveller (Bo)
Not enough time and money

traveller is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,133
Thanks tony and Kevin,
Always great to get some processing tips from others.
Will have another go later and if I can improve the image.
Bo
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25-09-2014, 10:44 AM
LightningNZ's Avatar
LightningNZ (Cam)
Registered User

LightningNZ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canberra
Posts: 951
Nice stuff. That UHC filter really hammers the reflection nebula unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25-09-2014, 10:57 AM
traveller's Avatar
traveller (Bo)
Not enough time and money

traveller is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightningNZ View Post
Nice stuff. That UHC filter really hammers the reflection nebula unfortunately.
Yes, I haven't tried imaging without uhc in my backyard, might try it one day and see what exposures I can get without lp washing out the photos.
Bo
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25-09-2014, 04:25 PM
Tony_ (Tony)
Registered User

Tony_ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 465
G'day Bo,

Another way to combat light pollution is to take an image of a white sheet of paper during sunshine. You will get a pinkish color. You need to adjust the ISO and exposure to get a good color that is not too bright or too dark (experiment).
You then set this image as your Custom White Balance and select it as the white balance to custom. When you take your exposures at night this will help reduce the pinkish brown color that light pollution causes and makes it easier to balance the image. (do not use a light pollution filter).
I have found this to be as good as (if not better) than light pollution filters

Regards,
Tony.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25-09-2014, 04:52 PM
LightningNZ's Avatar
LightningNZ (Cam)
Registered User

LightningNZ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canberra
Posts: 951
Tony, that's only going to change the image's colour balance. That's not actually going to improve contrast at all. Light pollution filters actually block ranges of wavelengths from ever getting to the camera, so hopefully what you do get is only the signal from your object.

UHC filters tend to let through just O3 and Ha wavelengths (though they may be quite broad peaks), so a fair bit can get lost. I use a Hutech IDAS LP2 and it doesn't have all that much rejection compared to a UHC or CLS filter, it does let the reflection nebs through.

Ultimately nothing bring back a truly dark sky except for turning the lights out.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25-09-2014, 05:11 PM
Tony_ (Tony)
Registered User

Tony_ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 465
I've got a Hutech IDAS LP2 also. Maybe my light pollution isn't too bad (but I think it is) but I seem to get better images when I use the white balance rather than the filter? Maybe the color balance is better and it's easier for me to process?
I guess to be sure I need to take some exposures of the same object on the same night with both methods to see which is best. It's a pity we get so few clear nights - very little time to experiment.
On the other hand, my images aren't that great so maybe it doesn't matter which method I use?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement