2.11
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
At the end of my first year in astrophotography, I'm interested in getting some feedback on some of my latest images to see where I can improve. I am shooting mainly narrowband so far from a bortle 6 location using a 360mm focal length doublet refractor with a field flattener and an ASI1600MM-Pro. Typical integration times are often dependent on weather windows and range from 9 hours up to 24 hours. I do all my processing through Pixinsight and have been adapting my processing workflows over time. I have been following workflows and techniques from several sources, with a focus on finding those that seem to work best for me. Really after comments on what can people see in the images that I can improve on.     |
1.43
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
That's some nice work Chris. One of the things that I do differently is to deemphasise the smaller stars, which I think can be a bit distracting, but that's just me! I also do my initial processing in PixInsight and separate the stars out of the image quite early in the workflow using StarXterminator. I then finalise the stretch for the nebulosity using the GHS script, which is excellent, but has the usual steep PixInsight learning curve! I use further PixInsight processes as applicable to the image and then export the starless image and its stars into PhotoShop as TIFFs for final tweaks and recombination into the final image. I find that that this allows me to achieve the balance between the target subject and the stars that I think is right for my image. Clear skies Tony |
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Chris I am also one year into the journey, so by no means do I know what I am talking about. But, I see a few things in your images that I have been working through and there are a few things that I think have helped me. No doubt that I also have a long way to go myself, so grain of salt. Not only am I not an expert, but this is all pretty much artists preference. Whatever pleases your eye is what matters. First try experimenting with mixing up the color pallets. It is a lot of fun and makes each image unique. I use a lot of blending with pixel math in the R and G channels (probably too much). It helps with color transitions in the image and opens up unlimited color options. The Dark Structure Enhance script is easy to abuse. If I use it, I dial it way down and I also try Local Histogram Equalization as an option. As Tony stated, try the GHS script. I am just getting the hang of it and it is indeed a steep learning curve. But it is a game changer. This would help with bringing out detail in the cores of these bright targets while also bringing out the surrounding nebulosity and dust. The images look kind of flat. You may want to experiment with generating a synthetic luminescence layer. Sometimes I use just an extracted L component, and sometimes I make one using just Ha or a blend of Ha and Sii. Refine the processing of that luminescence layer with Decon and good noise reduction and reapply it to the image. Sometimes sharpening certain highlights or colors in the image is much better than sharpening the whole image. It will add depth and can also help with your backgrounds which have a molted look to them. Adam Block's tutorials around luminescence data have really helped me here. Work on star reductions skills as Tony said. I agree with Tony that StarXterminator is a great tool and I now process all stars and nebulosity separately. Keep going back and reprocess your data trying different workflows. Any critiques of my points from more advanced members are greatly appreciated. I did an imaging trip to Aus in May so turns out we have a lot of the same targets in our galleries. Here is my version of your M8 image. Not my best image for sure and it is due for a reprocess to try out some new tricks. But I have employed some of the points I made here. https://www.astrobin.com/gz36e1/ Clear Skies! You have had a rough run of it down there this year with the weather. |
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Your images are beautiful. Maybe your luminance level can be turned down a little and color saturation brought up a little but that is totally subjective. Some people like to deemphasize the stars to bring out the nebulously, I remove the stars and process the stars and nebula separately then recombine them. I adjust the stars to what’s pleasing to my eye. For the nebula I don’t overdue the dark structure detection, it depends on the object. You can also try out different color palettes, I recommend the HOS French Canadian Telescope Palette, it’s not used enough imho. Here’s an example: Lobster Claw and Bubble nebulas with NGC 7538 and... (Lobster Claw and Bubble Nebula in French Canadian Telescope Color Palette) You should be proud of your work. Clear Skies! |
|
2.11
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Thanks all and appreciate the feedback. I'll have to put in some time to understand GHS. Great feedback on my stars and luminance levels and will start having a play to see what I can improve on. |
20.43
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
To my eye, areas of weaker signal lack color saturation, and in areas of very dark patches there are some color casts that could be cleaned up. This shot in particular illustrates the above critique: https://www.astrobin.com/xe03tl/0/ Really nice details in all of your images. From a capture standpoint you might work to improve your star shapes particularly off-axis. I think starting with the best data possible helps make the best image possible. On balance, you are doing a really good job after only being in the hobby for one year! Hope this helps, -Chris |
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Chris, Really nice data with a lot of detail. Well done. I have as well the WO61, however, I am really struggling with the adjustable flattener (might be some tilt in as well, other than that a real nice little scope). Yours look very good! The rest is more subjective - taste of colour etc. Personally, I would not do SHO on the Trifid due to the nice reflection nebula in combination with the Ha. And maybe a bit more colour saturation. On the other side, I find your stars quite nice. Rob |
|
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
To my eye, areas of weaker signal lack color saturation, and in areas of very dark patches there are some color casts that could be cleaned up. This shot in particular illustrates the above critique: https://www.astrobin.com/xe03tl/0/ Very interesting Chris. Your comments on star shapes lead to me looking at how I have my field flattener set up and tilt in my train. Still working on it but I think my adjustable flattener was out and introducing some tilt as well. Waiting for a clear night to check the small adjustments I have made. |
7.67
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
The first image has stacking artifacts that you outta crop out. I also don't think you are gaining anything by what I assume is 2x drizzling on some of the images. When you go for a muted SHO palette like you have done, it would be best to totally de saturate the stars so you have something to contrast the nebulosity. Speaking of stars they are probably the hardest part of the image. Too much reduction and things look wonky. Be careful if you decide to process them separately because if you don't match the brightness of the two images properly you might end up with weird, translucent looking stars. They still need to have a bit of punch, but not to the point of being blown out. |
