I posted one a while ago - to try to understand amp glow and noise issues, now I have done a run with in camera NR on - now to me this appears t obe better at compensating for the AMP glow on the longer shots - I might be wrong as, of course, this is 180s and my previous attempts were 300s, also the temp is different- anyway FWIW, 10x180s@iso 1600 at F9.
I am quite happy with the image - I will try for 300s with NR on and compare to 300s with DF subtration in IP - have to take some care though as the moon state/temp/transparancy/seeing/alt of target etc etc all impact image quality BUT it imy impression the AMP glow is better handled by the in camera NR...of course you pay a big penalty - lose 1/2 your collection time but I guess the test is not how many lights you took but what the result looks like after a, say, 2 hr run...
Nicely focused and guided john... nice and sharp.
I hope you don`t mind that I had a little play with it in PS just to see what info is hiding there. Adjusted levels and removed some noise, thats all..
Cheers Gary
, btw what did you actually do ? I could not get such a good result ... and I have the original which is 4x the resolution, 16 bits and and not compressed!
The processing I did was calibrate/stack and DD in IP2.8 then noise reduction in NeatImage and a little curves and colour comp in PS Elements...
Hi John,
Just go to levels, and give auto a go first, sometimes it comes close, then use the middle slider to gamma adjust in either RGB or individual channels to color balance, if not you will have to fiddle some to get it right, I usually push the gamma till the background is fairly grey but not to noisey.
Hope that helps...
Gary
![[1ponders]'s Avatar](../vbiis/customavatars/avatar45_9.gif){kind=avatar}
nice and sharp.
