Here it is 10 X 300sec images combined. Images shot with QHY8 camera with Gain of and offset of 118 in Nebulosity. I think it is a little over processed. Shooting some 10 min images as I type so the end result will be interesting.
No flats, darks or bias frames at this stage.
2nd image is a stack of 9 X 600 sec images.
Both images are cropped from originals
Criticize? Heck no, they are great. Do me a favour, dig through your hard drive and see if you have a similar image taken a year or two ago.
Then post that, next to one of these. I'll wager you will get a shock at how good your images have become.
Interesting to note the differing colours. I like the 10x300 second one.
Gary
my first tip would be use the full 200kb when you post as you get a cleaner image to start with, which makes it easier to critique. Apart from that cant see a big issue with anything other than a couple hot pixels, you might saturate the blues a bit more to bring out the blue star halo to the left of the galaxy perhaps. If you remember the Selective high contrast masking that Jase posted a while back ... its useful for bringing out the dust lanes.
They both look fantastic, Doug. The first is a bit better - the second has a bit too much yellow/green.
Why no flats or darks?
Hi Mike, I just haven't got that far yet. I did do a run of darks last night but feel that I am getting better results without darks. A lot of work to go yet to get to a reasonable standard.
Flats are new to me and I think I will need to build a light box as the camera can't be moved until they are done. I will need to take them at the end of the imaging run.
I will get there eventually but it has been one hell of a steep learning curve so far.
Doug,
while a light-box is indispensable, as Mike will attest, try some on a plain flat painted wall or similar, even the dreaded T shirt. A good wet day project is to try some inside, close to where you image etc.
I agree, darks with the QHY8 can be as much bother as they solve, but flats are almost a necessity.
Gary
They are both good images considering the amount of experience you have on imaging and processing. In a year or 2 you will look back at these and nitpick, but for now, they are very good.
The setup you have optically is working for you, not to mention a great dark site..
I hope your having fun with your QH8. You will find that for some reason darks are tricky with the QH8, It likes to have alot to use. As for flats I find it's better to take not of your focus and the next imaging session start with sky flats. It will mean that your flats will not get rid of the donuts fully but they will fix the worst of the rest.
Thanks for the comments fella's. And as for you Peter, you had me going there. I looked at the image, rolled the mouse over it and thought how the hell did he turn my image into this masterpiece. Then the penny dropped and I took a closer look. Bugger it is one of yours scaled to match. Lovely image. Maybe one day I will get there. I recognise that I have a lot to learn on all imaging fronts and maybe with help like this I will one day make it.
Thanks for the tutorial and kind comments.
No problemo....and my apologies, I did not mean to confuse you with my data...it was merely an example of datum to converge to.
I suspect you data is quite good. It's very difficult for me to do much with .jpg files.
Your scope should be able to produce needle like stars.
That said, galaxies are not the best target (you really need 2000mm + ). There is a lot of wider field stuff that the instrument will excel in recording.
So
1) Focus
2) Tracking
3) Deep subs (anything less than 5 minutes is a waste of time)
4) Don't forget the calibration frames (darks/flats)
The rest is simply the dark art of image processing....
