0.90
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
hello everyone, last week I created an image that I call my best photo. https://www.astrobin.com/uz9nkv/ This one only had two positive votes from the judges. As it is an area that is rarely photographed and I spent 11.5 hours capturing it @F2 , I am a little disappointed. Could you help me understand the weak points of this photo? A big thank-you ! Clear Skies !  |
4.42
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi, I think the jury is technically demanding and in your photo you can immediately spot small scale artifacts around stars. That's an absolute no go. Cheers, André |
7.76
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Purple sky? Too soft? Star size and colors? |
|
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Andre Vilhena: OK thanks andrea tasselli: Thanks, it's SPCC color correction. I think, this color is real |
|
7.76
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Werny Michael: Pretty sure last time I've checked the sky there wasn't purple. SPCC or no SPCC. Anyhow to each their own... |
8.78
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
The biggest technical flaw that stands out to me is the background gradient. One corner of the image, it's blue, one is purple, and the bottom left hovers around green. Dynamic Background Extraction is a pillar of proper data processing. Gradients such as yours are usually caused by some sort of light pollution, and they only get exaggerated as your processing continues. I would find some tutorials on how to improve your DBE. The image itself is soft, lacking detail. I don't gain anything by opening it full screen. There's many reasons for this, I can only speculate. That would be the number two reason why I wouldn't promote your image. The stars... well, those are just RASA stars IMO. They could use a little work, but they rarely are appealing. In this case, I think they're the least of your issues. |
11.14
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| The background color inconsistency (and not accuracy) is something one can easily observe by having a look at most of your gallery thumbnails so that's what I think is the main issue of your image. |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I'm not an exact pro in this area, but I should say at first your photo is quite good, on my opinion. If we talk about flaws in the photo, I will maybe repeat the words of previous commentators but the difference in background colors is quite striking, to me |
|
0.90
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Ok I understand the strengths and weaknesses of the image better. I need to improve, I think the acquisitions are good (bortle 3-4). I try to be as clean as possible so as not to overprocess. This is a great goal for 2024. A very big thank you to everyone for taking the time to respond to me ! :-) Clear skies ! |
5.77
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Michael, I would also agree to what has been said before; the gradient in the image ist possibly the biggest issue (but also very easy to cure: free Graxpert AI). It also seems you have blurred the image a little bit to reduce noise, hence the rather soft impression? But I would definitely not go so far as to call this a bad image, quite on the contrary. With new tools like BlusXterminator or NoiseXterminator the benchmark for top astro-photographs went up even higher, so you'll need to be on the leading edge of software and processing. Please also keep in mind, getting chosen for awards on Astrobin also involves some luck, there is no guarantee to be picked. Keep up the good work! Chris |
|
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Thank you for this feedback, indeed I am going to test GraXpert on this photo to see if I can improve. My goal is not specifically to be nominated, but receiving constructive criticism is very enriching. Thanks again to everyone ! ( And sorry for my english) |
|
8.78
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I can't see any reason given your situation to need something like Graxpert. DBE will work just fine, you just need to hone your skills in. |
7.67
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
I think everyone has covered the processing side, but there are special considerations you need to factor in with a RASA:
Your sub-exposure lengths are also excruciatingly long for broadband at F/2. You are needlessly blowing out the stars while having them bleed into the surrounding pixels for very minimal gain.  Here are the sub-exposure lengths I use for the 2600MC depending on the light pollution and what focal ratio I am at. The "extra noise" is the total extra noise from stacking. While I can respect not wanting to store and stack hundreds of frames, you should consider shortening your exposure time to at least 60 seconds. As for the actual picture, you can compare yours with this one: https://www.astrobin.com/nmu3h4/B/?q=&camera= |
|
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
I think everyone has covered the processing side, but there are special considerations you need to factor in with a RASA: Very interesting ! Thanks |
|
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I tried to apply your advice. Do you find this better? https://www.astrobin.com/uz9nkv/B/ Thanks at all ! |
1.51
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Your image is littered with pink/purple squares. I've seen colored squares show up in images that have had starxterminator run on them without selecting "large tile overlap". I've explicitly seen these exact colored purple squares on one other person's image - they claim deepsnr generated the squares. These kind of tile artifacts seem to be the hallmark of neural net denoising and star removal processes. You can also find this kind of color mottling when using MMT in pixinsight to denoise the chrominance of the image - although this tends to present as circles and ovals. |
|
2.41
#...
·
|
|---|
| It is hard to compete with photos produced on here with most equipment one can afford on a certain budget. I mean your going up against photos made by observatory class instruments on here. The photo is quite good I wish I could get a photo that good but been at it less than 6 months and heavily light polluted skies unless I travel to the mountains around here. I noticed the stars on those Rasa telescopes aren't quite as good as on refractors and other telescopes. I noticed that Celestron is coming out with a 6 inch version of the Rasa that is a smart telescope with camera and all built in it the only drawback is I think other telescopes like premium refractors and planewave telescopes produce better background stars and look better overall if done right. |
|
7.67
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Werny Michael: This is looking much better! |
|
8.78
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
kurt ragsdale: I'm not really agreeing with this at all. His equipment is perfectly capable of being competitive. He just needs to work on his processing a little. |
|
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
Your image is littered with pink/purple squares. It's true, purple squares on my picture :/ kurt ragsdale: Thank you for your encouragement, but I can make better use of my captures. Not for a picture of the day, but for better results. Brian Puhl:kurt ragsdale: I agree with you, I need to improve! Thanks I think my unit captures are too long and "eat" the color. |
|
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I don't think it's likely that too long subexposures is the root of your problem. This can only cause issues with the bright end of images and you're seeing the problem in the darker areas. I looked back at a few of your other images and I only see the same issue in the witch head image from 6 days ago. I think it's likely this is either a specific processing step you're taking (like the denoising/star removal I referred to) that you started recently. Potentially I could see this issue also happening if you're exporting to a lossy format and using too high compression and this issue only appears after exporting the image. I don't think this is likely though. |
|
8.78
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I wonder, are you using starless processing techniques? |
4.13
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
Is winning judges approval a priority? With thousands of images being submitted, I don’t ever expect to be picked. Better to shoot for your own gratification. I have been tagged as a contender once in 3 years, but did not win. I think your image looks terrific for 11 hours. Any images of that target that are more detailed or colorful are typically double the number of subs. I rarely have the patience to stay on a single target that long! That being said, I am slowly moving in that direction. Keep on doing what you’re doing. |
|
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
I don't think it's likely that too long subexposures is the root of your problem. This can only cause issues with the bright end of images and you're seeing the problem in the darker areas. Ok thanks, I'm going to look at this side Brian Puhl: Yes, for star reduction. Dave Rust: Thank you for your message, no I am not looking for approval from the judges... I am trying to improve my photos for this year of 2024. Your photos are very beautiful! Thanks |
3.61
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
If I may chime in.... How much did you adjust with curves? Specifically, how much increase in saturation did you do? Specially for those kind of targets, we want to "bring the colors out" by increasing the saturation, sometimes by a lot. But by increasing saturation, you also increase the difference in the colors in each part of the image. If your background is not properly neutral (and your image properly color corrected), any small difference in color will become by the end of your process. I know I've struggled quited a few times with this issue - and it's sometimes very frustrating because you only notice at the end. Some very meticulous curves adjustments can sometimes alleviate the issue, but the ideal is to not have it at alll. In regards to star removal techniques, that's an interesting topic as well. After the arrival os BlurX and GHS, I've found myself using less and less star removal (be it Starnet ou StarX). I think that star removal more often than not just introduces more artifacts than it helps overall. And with BlurX I can do proper deconvolution and star reduction at the linear state with minimal to no artifacts, and with GHS and proper curve adjustments, I can stretch the image while protecting the highlights (i.e. stars are not blown out). In the end, I find that it unless I'm aiming for a starless image (which I never did until today), the most I use StarX during the linear process is to "see" what kind of data I have before stretching - i.e. STF tends to blow up stars, and sometimes having a separate image without stars is useful to see what is nebulosity, etc. I still just work on the regular image though. |
