Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

The Leo Triplet

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 MadMaxwellSmart

MadMaxwellSmart

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Pilot Mountain NC

Posted 01 March 2017 - 11:50 AM

Hey folks, thought I would share one of my latest images with youM65,M66 and NGC3628 Leo Triplet.jpg

6x600 Lights

28x600 Darks

30 Flats

125 Bias


Edited by MadMaxwellSmart, 01 March 2017 - 11:50 AM.

  • Thomas Ashcraft, mikewayne3, DuncanM and 9 others like this

#2 TeamHawkins

TeamHawkins

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 26 May 2013

Posted 02 March 2017 - 04:15 PM

Nice shot!


  • MadMaxwellSmart likes this

#3 nathang123

nathang123

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2015

Posted 03 March 2017 - 03:09 PM

Good shot, but you've got some odd things going on in your processing (brown stars, brown... everything, no contrast). What did you do after stacking?

I was able to get this result in about 10 seconds in PS:
 

Attached Thumbnails

  • post-246411-0-55866100-1488386970(2).jpg

  • starbob1 and artem2 like this

#4 MadMaxwellSmart

MadMaxwellSmart

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Pilot Mountain NC

Posted 13 March 2017 - 12:09 PM

Also redid my Leo Triplet in Star Tools.Leo Triplet redo.jpg


  • George Simon, mikewayne3, 17.5Dob and 2 others like this

#5 SKYGZR

SKYGZR

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Speeding towards the Virgo Supercluster

Posted 13 March 2017 - 01:08 PM

That's better..



#6 MadMaxwellSmart

MadMaxwellSmart

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Pilot Mountain NC

Posted 13 March 2017 - 01:16 PM

Yea well, I got a little push to redo them, after all I love when some one right clicks, saves my work and changes it.  I guess I'll have to watermark the whole image.  I don't make a living at AP, if I tried I would starve.  This is just a hobby I enjoy doing, I'm quite sure, just like the rest of us....but any how  thanks for looking, it is a little better. For some reason I have a little trouble in the color mod of Star Tools.



#7 Doug McI

Doug McI

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Houghton, MI

Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:55 PM

Outstanding Picture!


  • MadMaxwellSmart likes this

#8 nathang123

nathang123

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2015

Posted 13 March 2017 - 10:36 PM

I don't want you to feel like I'm piling on tons of criticism, because this is definitely an improvement (especially the stretch for contrast), but there's some very odd stuff going on there. For example, the heavy blue/pink cast throughout. All of the galaxies (M66 is the worst) have blocks of complete desaturation (far too strong chroma noise reduction maybe?). M65 has a big chunk of red that I'm pretty sure doesn't actually exist. Very little star color outside of fringing. I'm not a star tools pro by any means so I'm not sure offhand what you or the program might have done to cause these. Can you explain your workflow (as I requested before) so that we can give some feedback that might help?

 

Yea well, I got a little push to redo them, after all I love when some one right clicks, saves my work and changes it. 

And... am I to presume that this was targeted at me?



#9 MadMaxwellSmart

MadMaxwellSmart

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Pilot Mountain NC

Posted 14 March 2017 - 12:30 PM

Maybe we got started bad, the only thing that I ask, if you want to have a go at my image, please ask first.  I'll even send the RAW file if you want.  I do apologize for that particular post.  As far as my image goes, I use a Canon T2i or 550D, Celestron 8 inch Newtonian, BackyardEOS and star tools for my processing. The color mod in that program is a beast, when I open that mod, it turns my image green, then I have to go from there.  I do know that if your data is good, you should not have to do much at all in the color mod.  This is only 40min worth, I am wondering if I add another 40min to this then reprocess if it will help.  I am looking into a Atik or SBIG later this year, summer time especially is hard on a DSLR for AP.  I am going to post a image of M33 that is 1hr and 40 min.  With this one I had to do nothing in star tools color mod.



#10 scopenitout

scopenitout

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 752
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Mt. Belzoni

Posted 14 March 2017 - 05:02 PM

Maybe we got started bad, the only thing that I ask, if you want to have a go at my image, please ask first. I'll even send the RAW file if you want. I do apologize for that particular post.


You are the one who deserves the apology.
It was particularly bad form for others to "reprocess" your image.

#11 John_Gillies

John_Gillies

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:03 AM

 

You are the one who deserves the apology.
It was particularly bad form for others to "reprocess" your image.

 

That's why I'll never post another pic here again.  Some people think they have license to re-process others images without permission.  It's like they're saying "I can do better than you with your images".  It may not be their intent, but it sure comes across that way.  The tools are here to contact someone away from the forum and at least ask permission.  This is a great forum and I'll never stop perusing it as it brings a lot of ideas, samples and solutions to the forefront.


  • MadMaxwellSmart likes this

#12 nathang123

nathang123

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2015

Posted 16 March 2017 - 02:30 AM

Maybe we got started bad, the only thing that I ask, if you want to have a go at my image, please ask first.  I'll even send the RAW file if you want.  I do apologize for that particular post.  As far as my image goes, I use a Canon T2i or 550D, Celestron 8 inch Newtonian, BackyardEOS and star tools for my processing. The color mod in that program is a beast, when I open that mod, it turns my image green, then I have to go from there.  I do know that if your data is good, you should not have to do much at all in the color mod.  This is only 40min worth, I am wondering if I add another 40min to this then reprocess if it will help.  I am looking into a Atik or SBIG later this year, summer time especially is hard on a DSLR for AP.  I am going to post a image of M33 that is 1hr and 40 min.  With this one I had to do nothing in star tools color mod.

I think you may have gotten started by somehow inserting manufactured intent into my post, as happens. I know that my intent was only to point out the things that you might have noticed yourself and help you remedy them, as a person would do on a forum dedicated to a particular pursuit. The specific things I did, in order, were to: complement the shot (because it is nice and sharp with a good bit of detail, and actually makes me want to go gather some photons of this target myself), point out that there were some severe peculiarities in your processing while giving a basic description (and I do mean objective issues, not artistic license or anything of the sort, for example the brightest value on the brightest star being lower than 170/255 if I recall correctly), ask what you were doing so that people (not just me, as many know more) could help with it, and finally show what could be done in seconds to the bad jpg data to improve them quite a bit. That was not a reprocessing attempt by any means. It was nothing more than a demonstration of what tools can do to address some of the issue in very short time. If I desired to reprocess your actual data to a final image of my personal liking, I most certainly would ask, and I really think I had no reason to think that you were particularly invested in this output or that anything I was doing would be insulting on any level. I do appreciate the apology and will likewise apologize for offending as have absolutely no ill will here. As before, I just want to help you identify issues and solve them. And if I get out of my depth in the attempt, I hope that somebody else can come aid.

So, all that said, I actually would like to see your stacked data and a single example CR2 from the stacked group to take a look at the histograms. It seems really odd that it would be severely green if everything worked correctly up to that point (for example, demosiacing/CFA removal, since there are double the green pixels involved). I'd also like to see if there is any severe chroma noise going on that is causing something in your program to eat the signal and leave grayscale in your galaxies. I would expect that you probably have a fair bit of noise there, as 40 min is definitely on the low side, but I'm not familiar with that particular sensor so it may be worse/better than I'm used to seeing on my Nikon. Regardless, since you mentioned, another 40 minutes would absolutely help. I can hardly think of a downside to more integration time than... well, the time it takes.

 

 

 

It was particularly bad form for others to "reprocess" your image.

 

You REALLY think that was a reprocessing attempt? A vague white balance and linear stretch? I'm truly not sold on this, as I have no reason to think little of you. I simply must ask... do you think that most people spend a few seconds when they process astrophotography, or do you think it's more likely that they'd spend a few seconds to show a contrasting example to a person? Personally, I tend to dump hours into my shots when I'm trying to produce a result I'm proud of (especially if working with poorer data), so it would be absolutely nutty to me for one to think that somebody intended to do anything meaningful in seconds. Something to ponder while listening to WJAZ.
 

 

That's why I'll never post another pic here again.  Some people think they have license to re-process others images without permission.  

 

 

I'm sorry, but this attitude is both self-defeating and quite over-sensitive. If you never post another pic here, nobody here will see your work. If you have enough pride in your work to be greatly insulted when others touch it... why would you not post anyway so that others could enjoy your efforts? I don't understand. It really is a shame, as I'm sure you get some pretty amazing results with that equipment list and decades of experience.
 

It's like they're saying "I can do better than you with your images".  It may not be their intent, but it sure comes across that way.  

 

 

I'm not going to try to dig into the way that some other person (who wasn't me) wronged you by doing something to some image of yours at some point in the past. It's really not relevant to this situation, as I honestly have a hard time believing that ANY person capable of rational thought could draw parallels with this (if they were using said rational thought). What IS relevant is that I most certainly didn't say any such thing, and it definitely wasn't my intent (as should have been clear by my actions of constructively criticizing and asking questions). And how things "come across"... well, it happens that it is exactly as they are written, so that's not what you actually mean. What you mean is "it sure is the way I interpret it". And to that I say that people need to put more effort into interpreting things as if the people on the other end of the posts actually DON'T have the worst of intents instead of doing the literal opposite and consequently finding every reason to be insulted by dry and concise posting. And, also, people REALLY should not be propagating this attitude that others are by default bad and should be made to apologize, or that dogpiling is OK. Because, as it turns out, multiple people (because of their own apparent hangups) getting nasty in their assessment of a person that was actually being wholly altruistic does the entire community a disservice. Especially if this ends up running off the person. And while this isn't going to run me off, I expect that my tone makes it apparent that I am somewhat irked by what seems like an unfair conviction.

Seriously, man... I think it is sound advice to just share your work and lighten up a bit. As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority (myself included) will be very happy to see it as they have a genuine love for the hobby (and the universe itself), and the tiny sliver of egotistical show-offs that might remain can quite simply be ignored... 



#13 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 13136
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Cloud-chester,NY

Posted 18 March 2017 - 11:13 AM

OK folks, let's not get off track here.



#14 bmhjr

bmhjr

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 365
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2015
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 18 March 2017 - 11:36 AM

Glenn, nice image

 

Nathan, most people invite comment and criticism.  But, reposting the OP image without permission , whether you spent 10 seconds or 10 days work on it, is not good practice.  Now you know.  Thanks.


  • atpladypilot and 17.5Dob like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics