The first image I feel comfortable posting here.

[Peter.M]

I feel with this image I can graduate to the big boys forum. My processing is far from great as I have not had much sleep being on afternoonshift and spending the night taking the photos. I can stretch the data more and more nebulosity comes out however this balance of noise and stretching was more pleasing to me.

The core is a little funny because I only used 1 short frame ( forgot to do more )

7 10 minute exposures at iso 200.

Criticism welcome as always.

[PeterM]

Hi Peter.M
My only comment is that I like the image. It is not over done/processed and for my mind does this well trodden area of sky justice. No doubt those more technical will have some constructive ideas but it is just a nice image.
Thanks for sharing.
Congrats from another PeterM

[niko]

Great work Peter - well done! Nice and subtle colours, focus looks good too.

Keep 'em coming!

niko

[midnight]

With my level of skills (or lack of to be more precise) I would be very happy with this.

A good indication would be tight stars so you're on the right track. Keep at it!!

Darrin...

[bmitchell82]

Okay :) this is what i would say

1. ;D don't process after the night enevitably you will get done over.

2. Your stacking is off, as can be seen by the stars down the bottom what program/method did you use to stack the images.? From what I can see it looks as if you have tried to align them manually.

3. The overall luminance of the image is flat what program do you use? Photoshop if so then depending on the version I can help you bring the image up a whole lot more

Other than that the stars are reasonable though you would have to post a much larger image for us to really start looking at the stars to give you feedback on your guiding.

You have done a good job considering that you have only just started out but there is always room for improvement. I hope that you don't take too much offence about me picking the eyes out of it but i think of it this way that we can all slap each other on the back and say thats absolutely brilliant or call it how you see it which will give you the feedback to help you improve your game.

Brendan :thumbsup:

[peter_4059]

Great start Peter. Nicely processed.

Peter

[Ross G]

Hi Peter,

Really well done.

Looks sharp, well tracked and nice stars right to the corners.

Wish I could get that from my 8" F4.

Good luck.

Ross.

[Peter.M]

I use deep sky stacker, and cs5. The stacking issues you are refering too are possibly from my frame masking. When I get home I will have a look on my monitor everything looks awesome on a phones screen :-D. I will give processing another go later and see if I can't get more out. I am thinking of trying the supersampling debayering method that effectively bins the data to decrease noise. I'm not going to get offended at anything you say Brendan. I'm 1 month into the hobby im happy my 10 minute shots don't look like star trails. One thing that I am eternally gratefull for is the internet. My progression is solely because i read and then I go to more sites and read more. Thanks everyone for your comments, i will continue to strive to produce the best images i can to present to you guys

[Peter.M]

Ok, so I got home and took another shot at the processing. I feel that this version is far better colour wise, because im not sure where to post a full size image (most sites still downsize images) I will include a zoomed one for tracking evaluation.

[bmitchell82]

You have don'e a cracking job mate!

Okay DSS is the best program i have found for stacking RAW Canon Fit files its fast its decent it works without too much issue. As for the binning thing you where talking about :S I dunno ide leve it as it is just a simple stack Photoshop is more than capable of bringing out those colours without a hitch.

How.? well its iterative you will find that it takes a fair while to learn how to use PS properly I have been using it since year 8 and that was PS2 i believe it was in 1995.

Vibrance, Levels and Curves are your friend but be aware they can be your enemy another good one is Shadows and highlights.

Start with levels.
Crop the image slightly to make sure you have gotten rid of all the stacking artifacts around the edge.
Under the RGB (which is default) start trimming back the white point and black point. be careful with both the sliders as too far with either one of them will cost you data once you have slightly trimmed each end, the middle slider or as i like to call the grey point, i bring it upto the start of the bell curve or just a little bit off. When you do this you will see the image brighten significantly, apply start again I normally find that it takes me about 5-6 iterations before it stops moving around.

Open up the Histogram and show all colours there should be 4 RGB, then R , G, B. Go back into Levels and where it says RGB up the top click the drop down box, you will see each individual channel. This allows you to balance the colours and boost individual channels in a linear fashion. Apply the same technique as you did previously but keep your eyes on the histogram as you do it and don't freak out about the colour untill you have adjusted all 3.... :)

Okay so now you have streched your image to fit the full 16bit gamut tootle into the Curves section, Start with the RGB and look for a curve, generally following a slight boost in the main histogram (above the straight diagonal line) at about the middle of that box, lift the line even higher, but then flatten it out at the top. I know that sounds nigh on impossible to follow but i cannot think of any other way to discribe it. I will post a tutorial soon about it.

Now once you have done that little exercise remembering iterations are the best way to keeping star colours

Move to vibrance this is a very powerful tool that now comes up in the main menu where Levels and Curves hang out. you have two sliders that come up in a pop up window. Vibrance, and Saturation play around with them a bit untill you get the feel. remember sometimes less is better and iterations work wonders.

Have a look at shadows and highlights after as sometimes your stars have gotten very bright and over powering you can tone them down to a fair degree with that tool.

So 3 top tips

ITERATIONS little iterations allow you to fine adjust and preserve
Levels Start with RGB and then move to individual channels
Vibrance It brings your image back to life!

Hopefully soon ill get that tute done with images and discriptions for everybody to follow.

Brendan :thumbsup:

[bmitchell82]

Oh and don't strive to get better to please people on this forum Peter. Get better for yourself and so YOU can enjoy your images with your friends and family. :)

Posting the images up here should be for critique to help you get better. As a bonus for US we get to see a good image! :)

[PeterM]

Like I said Peter, I like the first image and I am knocked over by your second image. You know the real test is not this forum at all - simply show your spouse, partner, family, friends they will be the best judge of how pleasing an image is to them. Indeed print it and hang it on a wall in the house. You have something to be proud of. If your partner is happy then that's a great start, you can now justify what you are about to spend.... As I predicted you would get excellent constructive advice which will add to your technical knowledge and expertise.
I do thousands 30 second images in monochrome, not at all into the longer exposure colour stuff and with people like you doing what you do why would I bother. My jaw drops continually at the work presented here by our astro imagers, which now includes you.
Congrats again.
PeterM.

[originaltrilogy]

great image!

[Peter.M]

I want to create better images for myself, because of the self satisfaction it gives me. However everyone I know already is amazed with my images. As you guys all probally know, people dont really understand about how large these objects are in the sky.

I bet people with photos of andromeda will have had the comment
"how big is your telescope". People assume deep space means small. Which I guess proves that out of sight out of mind.

[AdrianF]

Great image. I have taken many images of "out there" but only to please myself.

Adrian

[Greg Bock]

Wow Peter.M, 1 month eh?...Can't complain about the first image you posted, and then the second is much better. You're learning very quickly, keep it up.

There are lots of things you can do to improve, there's no doubt. It's taken me years since the film era to get results that I'm happy with now.

Also don't forget that, although there's a heck of alot of science and technical rights and wrongs behind the image acquisition and then subsequent processing, there's also alot of 'black art' available to us through software these days, which is subjective.
The challenge for astrophotographers is to learn to get the best technically out of our budgets ($, equipment, and personal time to get well focussed and round stars, avoid colour saturation of bright areas, achieve high S/N ratios, etc) as well as create something that is pleasing to the eye without overdoing it.

Brendan, and others in this forum across a bunch of posts, have alot of great advice. I just wish I had more time to take advantage of it.

So, don't worry about posting here, it's the best thing that you can do to improve!
Have fun.

[Peter.M]

My background is science, and at the start I concerned myself with the maths and formulas to getting the best signal to noise ratio. What iso to use and exposure legnths. I sort of threw that all out the window and am experimenting to see what gives me the best final product without the theory.

So far what I have found is Iso means almost nothing, The only noticeable thing about iso is that it changes the dark current. If you do dark correction dark current is less noticeable anyway. And so far longer subs make for a better image. So I have been shooting the longest subs that i can and setting the iso to a level that does not saturate the chip. Orion is probally the exception to the rule DR wise, and in an ideal world I would have taken shorter frames to preserve the core. But as these were my first 10 minute subframes I decided to do as many as i could and then see how they went.

[astronobob]

Yep, That is a remarkable Effort Peter, Initially I thought it was the Other Peter M's Image, Odd , because he is a Successfull SN hunter Now , Lol !
A great Job and a good collection of the dust between the Orion and Running Man which isn't all that easy also ! So well done !

[Greg Bock]

Yes, you are definitely on the right track by taking subs for as long as possible without saturating things, and reducing noise using dark frames. I have a science/engineering background too, and I agree with your comments about the theory. It's a starting point, but experimentation is the key.
Just one tip; don't delete any of your initial images, as you may well find that after time with experience, and/or new software, that you can significantly improve those first images.


It will be good to see more of your work over time.

[bmitchell82]

Spot on Greg, i have kept all my original data. wow i go back for a trip down memory lane now and then and it just blows me away A. How far i have come. B. I wasn't doing to bad at all!!!

Peter I found that ISO does kind of matter because if you put it too low you wont get a image out of it. Too high and like you said Thermal noise becomes shocking I used to run my 40D with ISO 800 and either 5 or 10 min images. Its good to see that you have now seen the differences between short and long subs for what we do which is catching faint fuzzies and dust, the longest exposure you can muster is the best! This weekend i will be going for a combo of 10 and 15 min exposures and as many as i can find all to pick up the really faint stuff!

Good luck and I look forward to
1. Seeing your next piece
2. Sending you some data to play with and practice

Brendan :thumbsup:

[Peter.M]

I caved and bought the shoestring astronomy shutter control, so I should get some decent legnth exposures up soon. I figured for 100 bucks or so it will save me alot of time while I save for my ccd. At the moment I have to go outside every 10 minutes and use the shutter release cable, and then place it down as gently as I can so I dont disturb the mount. That gets old really fast, and you lose subs from accidently bumping the mount.

[bmitchell82]

Its all little steps mate... little steps.

Its taken me 3 years to accumulate the equipment i have and its only though the fact that I have access to good quality metal working tools eg Lathes, bridge port milling machines and a whole raft of other stuff that I have got half the gear that I do. As i built the 3" OAG myself, increased the size of the puck in the head of the EQ6 along with the new D saddle style dovetail holder and Dovetail on the newt. those 3 things alone would be closing in on 1500 dollars without blinking a eyelid!

Also these trials and tribulations are while frustrating as hell. give you the needed skills and knowledge so when you do finally get that 20k worth of scope camera and mount there is nothing that it can throw at you that you cannot quickly sort out without the need for getting other people to help you. Invaluable in my opinion :D

Brendan:thumbsup:

[Stevec35]

Not too bad at all!

Cheers

Steve