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

Veil Nebula

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 14 August 2020 - 01:11 AM

So here is my meager attempt at the Veil.  Shot at 105mm, 45s subs and about 45 min total exposure time.  I'm having a heck of a time with the post processing (been using Lightroom).  I tried to stretch out the histogram, and did some very heavy editing, compared to what I'm used to with regular photos.  The biggest problem is bringing out the nebula from the background.  I can brighten it up a lot, but then the sky is much too bright.  I darken the sky, and then the nebula is too dark.

 

Do I need to do something different with the processing, or is my total exposure time just too low?  I live in a heavily light polluted area.  The quality of the attached image is worse than the original, but I had to reduce it to meet the 500 KB limit.

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • Veil.jpg

  • Starman27, eros312 and clusterbuster like this

#2 clusterbuster

clusterbuster

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,119
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2016
  • Loc: Tampa Bay, Fl.

Posted 14 August 2020 - 02:12 AM

I like it !

 You sure got A WHOLE LOT OF STARS !!!

and the complete VEIL....

 Mark



#3 Seven007

Seven007

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 14 August 2020 - 04:03 AM

I like this area a lot!

 

Nice image, you can see the veil with relativ short integration time and heavy light polution!! smile.gif

 

What kind of camera are you using?

 

I am sure with more Integration it will improve. 

 

There are several threads here about post processing the veil. In this very often the stars are removed/reduced with starnet++ or ihrer tools.

 

Best Regards 



#4 DubbelDerp

DubbelDerp

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,361
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Upper Peninsula of Michigan

Posted 14 August 2020 - 07:54 AM

That looks pretty good for 45 minutes in light pollution! Yes, more integration time would help. +1 for using Starnet++ to remove stars. This lets you stretch the nebula and recombine with the stars later.

This target really benefits from a dual band filter, since it is rich in both H-a and OIII. Plus it wipes out most of the light pollution.

Are you shooting flats? There’s some vignetting in the corners that is probably limiting how much you can stretch. If you aren’t, you should. If you are, something isn’t working quite right with them.

#5 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 14 August 2020 - 11:59 AM

Thanks, guys!  So it sounds like I'm in the right track.  I was struggling a bit since I had to make a lot of adjustments in LR.  I normally don't edit so heavily with regular shots, but I guess AP can require quite a bit of post work?  Playing with the tone curve and levels seemed to make a lot of difference.  I'll check into Starnet sine there's like a bajillion stars in the shot, haha.

 

I shot this with a Nikon D850 and 70-200 f/4 @ 105mm on the Skyguider Pro.  Looking back, I probably could've zoomed in more, but I wanted to be sure I got the target in the frame.

 

 

 

That looks pretty good for 45 minutes in light pollution! Yes, more integration time would help. +1 for using Starnet++ to remove stars. This lets you stretch the nebula and recombine with the stars later.

This target really benefits from a dual band filter, since it is rich in both H-a and OIII. Plus it wipes out most of the light pollution.

Are you shooting flats? There’s some vignetting in the corners that is probably limiting how much you can stretch. If you aren’t, you should. If you are, something isn’t working quite right with them.

No, I didn't shoot any flats.  I was going to mention that the other difficulties when processing were gradients and vignetting.  Sounds like flats would help, so I'll try that next time.  I am almost totally new to AP.  I've been doing regular photog for years, but this is a whole new world smile.gif
 



#6 DubbelDerp

DubbelDerp

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,361
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Upper Peninsula of Michigan

Posted 14 August 2020 - 12:11 PM

You can shoot flats after the fact, although it’s not as ideal. Just get your lens at as close to the same focal length as possible, cover the objective with a few layers of white cloth secured with rubber bands, and shoot at the daytime sky. Keep it away from the sun. Shoot in aperture priority mode, and get about 30 flats. Then cover the objective and viewfinder so no light is reaching the sensor, and shoot 30 more dark flats with the same exposure settings. Flat field correction requires darks or bias as well, but you can substitute your dark flats in a pinch, although it won’t correct the sensor noise. But it will flatten your lights. Highly recommend the 30-day free trial of Astro Pixel Processor. It’ll make your life MUCH easier in calibrating, stacking, and stretching. 
 

If you’d like some data to play around with, here’s the raw stack from my veil image. It’s not great, but might give you an idea of what to shoot for in terms of integration time...
https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing


  • ET_PhoneHome likes this

#7 Huangdi

Huangdi

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2019

Posted 14 August 2020 - 12:19 PM

I highly recommend you not to use Lightroom for Processing, ever again.

You seem to have captured a nice amount of nebulosity, but the color balance is of.

A program that should help you a lot with processing is AstroPixelProcessor. The function "remove light pollution" will leave you with your mind blown. They have a free 30 oder 45 day trial (I forgot which), I can only recommend for you to do that.

Lightroom really is the wrong tool for processing. It might do fine for adjusting the final colors and saturation, but that's about it.
  • DubbelDerp likes this

#8 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 14 August 2020 - 02:00 PM

You can shoot flats after the fact, although it’s not as ideal. Just get your lens at as close to the same focal length as possible, cover the objective with a few layers of white cloth secured with rubber bands, and shoot at the daytime sky. Keep it away from the sun. Shoot in aperture priority mode, and get about 30 flats. Then cover the objective and viewfinder so no light is reaching the sensor, and shoot 30 more dark flats with the same exposure settings. Flat field correction requires darks or bias as well, but you can substitute your dark flats in a pinch, although it won’t correct the sensor noise. But it will flatten your lights. Highly recommend the 30-day free trial of Astro Pixel Processor. It’ll make your life MUCH easier in calibrating, stacking, and stretching. 
 

If you’d like some data to play around with, here’s the raw stack from my veil image. It’s not great, but might give you an idea of what to shoot for in terms of integration time...
https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

Thanks for sharing that file, I'll play around with ti!

 

I highly recommend you not to use Lightroom for Processing, ever again.

You seem to have captured a nice amount of nebulosity, but the color balance is of.

A program that should help you a lot with processing is AstroPixelProcessor. The function "remove light pollution" will leave you with your mind blown. They have a free 30 oder 45 day trial (I forgot which), I can only recommend for you to do that.

Lightroom really is the wrong tool for processing. It might do fine for adjusting the final colors and saturation, but that's about it.

Cool, I'll check this out.  LR seems doable, but it took A LOT of work.  If there is better software for astro, I'm all for it.



#9 Seven007

Seven007

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 14 August 2020 - 02:12 PM

Hi,

Your right in AP you have to do some postprocesing.

And you will get many many answers how you should do that. Not because one way is right or wrong but because there are so many ways.

I can recomand these two books
(There are many more)

Charles bracken - deep sky Imaging primer
Michael covington - digital SLR Astrophotography

If you like to use photoshop for postprocessing, it is possible. You are going to need some Plugins. Take a look at Jerry Lodriguss site astropix.com
excellent Information and books.

Many People like APP - good at stacking, mosaicing and light polution removal.
But mostly needs extra program for further postprocessing.

Startools is also an excellent choice for post processing, but you need something to stack your Images like DSS.

Pixinsight - high end solution but takes a lot of Time.

The good thing there are free trials and good youtube videos for all of them.

In the end it is up to you what you like.

Best Regards
  • ET_PhoneHome likes this

#10 chanrobi

chanrobi

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 602
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2019

Posted 14 August 2020 - 07:27 PM

I highly recommend you not to use Lightroom for Processing, ever again.

You seem to have captured a nice amount of nebulosity, but the color balance is of.

A program that should help you a lot with processing is AstroPixelProcessor. The function "remove light pollution" will leave you with your mind blown. They have a free 30 oder 45 day trial (I forgot which), I can only recommend for you to do that.

Lightroom really is the wrong tool for processing. It might do fine for adjusting the final colors and saturation, but that's about it.

At least have a look at rogers workflow to get a basic understanding of what you should be doing.

 

https://clarkvision....ge.processing2/

 

1) Process raws with rawtherapee

2) Stack with DSS

3) Remove gradients (with LR yes)

4) Stretch

5) Star diameter reduction/deconvlute etc.

 

Done.

 

Download and have a look at Unsolds ImagesPlus, it's free now. Used to be a couple hundred dollars?


  • ET_PhoneHome likes this

#11 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 14 August 2020 - 09:03 PM

Cool, thanks.  I've been playing around with Star Tools, and I think Iike it so far.  It's a bit more straightforward than some of the other software I've tried.



#12 17.5Dob

17.5Dob

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 7,084
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Colorado,USA

Posted 14 August 2020 - 10:29 PM

Light Room is probably the worst choice you can make for PP.....There's something seriously wrong with your color balance..

But you did capture a good bit of nebulosity. More integration always helps.I try for 3 hrs at minimum....



#13 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 14 August 2020 - 10:35 PM

I'm messing around with Star Tools right now, but my image looks wack.  If I choose linear, DSLR upon import, the image is in B&W.  If I choose, linear, then run an auto dev, there is a very strong red color cast.  Not sure what I'm doing wrong.



#14 17.5Dob

17.5Dob

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 7,084
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Colorado,USA

Posted 14 August 2020 - 10:41 PM

At least have a look at rogers workflow to get a basic understanding of what you should be doing.

 

https://clarkvision....ge.processing2/

 

1) Process raws with rawtherapee

2) Stack with DSS

3) Remove gradients (with LR yes)

4) Stretch

5) Star diameter reduction/deconvlute etc.

 

Done.

 

Download and have a look at Unsolds ImagesPlus, it's free now. Used to be a couple hundred dollars?

No NO, NO !!!!

Never pre- process your RAW images..just load them straight into DSS

Post process with something other than LR....GIMP is better than LR


 


Edited by 17.5Dob, 14 August 2020 - 10:42 PM.


#15 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 14 August 2020 - 10:44 PM

I am loading directly into DSS.  After it's stacked, I'm loading it into Star Tools and it's in B&W.  I think I forgot to check the "do not white balance" box in DSS.  Re-running it now....



#16 chanrobi

chanrobi

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 602
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2019

Posted 14 August 2020 - 11:29 PM

No NO, NO !!!!

Never pre- process your RAW images..just load them straight into DSS

Post process with something other than LR....GIMP is better than LR


 

Sorry, disagree.

 

https://clarkvision....th-rawtherapee/

 

Here is why



#17 Nikon Guy

Nikon Guy

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2020

Posted 15 August 2020 - 12:16 AM

Sorry, disagree.

 

https://clarkvision....th-rawtherapee/

 

Here is why

Roger has all but disappeared from every forum he used to post in, aside from Reddit....

 

Has he posted his methods here ?...It's funny he never posts here, if he has so much knowledge to share

He completely usurped the AP forum at DPReview for a time, and drove it into the ground with his non stop, "My Way or No Way" comments. Many MANY people fled the site , solely due to his comments/presence......until he was proven completely wrong about most of his "theories /methods", and scientific equations,  by most of the same people who post here, a long time ago, and has never returned....

 

He got his 15 minutes of fame....time to get back to real science


Edited by Nikon Guy, 15 August 2020 - 12:21 AM.


#18 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 15 August 2020 - 12:23 AM

Roger has all but disappeared from every forum he used to post in, aside from Reddit....

 

Has he posted his methods here ?...It's funny he never posts here, if he has so much knowledge to share

He completely usurped the AP forum at DPReview for a time, and drove it into the ground with his non stop, "My Way or No Way" comments. Many MANY people fled the site , solely due to his comments/presence......until he was proven completely wrong about most of his "theories /methods", and scientific equations,  by most of the same people who post here, a long time ago, and has never returned....

 

He got his 15 minutes of fame....time to get back to real science

LOL, don't even get me started about the DPR forums.  I've gotten into quite a few "lively" arguments over there.  Those forums can turn into a real circus lol.gif



#19 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 15 August 2020 - 01:27 AM

Here's what I ended up with after playing around in StarTools.  Obviously, I've got a lot to learn when it comes to this sort of thing, but it's definitely been interesting so far.

https://www.flickr.c...eposted-public/



#20 Huangdi

Huangdi

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2019

Posted 15 August 2020 - 04:44 AM

At least have a look at rogers workflow to get a basic understanding of what you should be doing.

 

https://clarkvision....ge.processing2/

 

1) Process raws with rawtherapee

2) Stack with DSS

3) Remove gradients (with LR yes)

4) Stretch

5) Star diameter reduction/deconvlute etc.

 

Done.

 

Download and have a look at Unsolds ImagesPlus, it's free now. Used to be a couple hundred dollars?

Roger's approach is controversial and I think its a very bad idea to recommend his methodology to beginners. When I started out I was fascinated by his images. Didn't take long for me to realize that there were several things wrong with his approach. 

 

First of all, he almost exclusively shoots from dark sites where all you have is one light gradient. Yes, even lightroom can get rid of that. Good luck with getting rid of gradients in non-linear images from inside the city. 

 

You talk about understanding workflows, as far as I'm concerned, deconvolution should be applied when the image is in its linear form. 

 

Lastly, all you have to do is compare his images to those of photographers who use the "common" workflow that I mentioned. His images usually are completely over processed in many ways. People can argue all they want but at the end of the day their results matter. And Roger's don't convince me. 

 

No NO, NO !!!!

Never pre- process your RAW images..just load them straight into DSS

Post process with something other than LR....GIMP is better than LR


 

Listen to this advice, please. Lightroom is barely good enough for mild Landscape/Portrait editing, the only thing it's really good at is batch processing imo.



#21 Huangdi

Huangdi

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2019

Posted 15 August 2020 - 04:44 AM

Here's what I ended up with after playing around in StarTools.  Obviously, I've got a lot to learn when it comes to this sort of thing, but it's definitely been interesting so far.

https://www.flickr.c...eposted-public/

That's much better! I think currently you are integration time limited. I also recommend to choose a different target to practice, the Veil complex is beautiful but it is really faint.

 

The Andromeda Galaxy or the Pleiades for example will make much better practice targets! 


Edited by Huangdi, 15 August 2020 - 04:46 AM.

  • Seven007 likes this

#22 Seven007

Seven007

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 15 August 2020 - 06:21 AM

That's much better! I think currently you are integration time limited. I also recommend to choose a different target to practice, the Veil complex is beautiful but it is really faint.

 

The Andromeda Galaxy or the Pleiades for example will make much better practice targets! 

+1



#23 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 15 August 2020 - 11:59 AM

That's much better! I think currently you are integration time limited. I also recommend to choose a different target to practice, the Veil complex is beautiful but it is really faint.

 

The Andromeda Galaxy or the Pleiades for example will make much better practice targets! 

Thanks. Yeah, I think aside from being brand new to this, my issue is I'm not starting with ideal target for beginners.  I was experimenting the the Whirlpool and Veil because they are in an ideal sky position for me.  Unfortunately, my backyard just isn't the greatest for astronomy.  There is a lot of light pollution, and the yard is very small, so my view if the sky is quite obstructed.  To top it off, there are several power/utility lines running over my head, too.  Imaging from the front yard might help a little, but I'd rather not leave my gear just sitting out there unattended for hours on end.

 

That said, I will keep at it, and do what I can smile.gif  I guess I could just google it, but if anyone has more suggestions for beginner targets besides the ones mentioned above, that'd be cool.  I'm also interested in planetary work, but I don't think my D850 will be great for that.  Sounds like there's no way to get full res video off the sensor.



#24 ET_PhoneHome

ET_PhoneHome

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2017

Posted 15 August 2020 - 12:02 PM

Roger's approach is controversial and I think its a very bad idea to recommend his methodology to beginners. When I started out I was fascinated by his images. Didn't take long for me to realize that there were several things wrong with his approach. 

 

First of all, he almost exclusively shoots from dark sites where all you have is one light gradient. Yes, even lightroom can get rid of that. Good luck with getting rid of gradients in non-linear images from inside the city. 

 

You talk about understanding workflows, as far as I'm concerned, deconvolution should be applied when the image is in its linear form. 

 

Lastly, all you have to do is compare his images to those of photographers who use the "common" workflow that I mentioned. His images usually are completely over processed in many ways. People can argue all they want but at the end of the day their results matter. And Roger's don't convince me. 

 

Listen to this advice, please. Lightroom is barely good enough for mild Landscape/Portrait editing, the only thing it's really good at is batch processing imo.

I can't agree with this.  I use LR for all my regular photography editing (mostly wildlife and nature, but a variety of things) and I like it better than other programs like Capture One.  A lot can be done with more complex software like Photoshop, but those images tend to be a lot more "fake" looking, and IMO, they are because of so much manipulation. 



#25 Huangdi

Huangdi

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2019

Posted 15 August 2020 - 12:46 PM

I can't agree with this. I use LR for all my regular photography editing (mostly wildlife and nature, but a variety of things) and I like it better than other programs like Capture One. A lot can be done with more complex software like Photoshop, but those images tend to be a lot more "fake" looking, and IMO, they are because of so much manipulation.


Obviously everyone has their own ideas of how things should be done and there really isn't a right or wrong. To me Lightroom simply doesn't offer enough control. And full control over your image is what you want when it comes to processing astronomical images.

Another very important aspect is the ability to *switch* between the linear and the non-linear image, and to be able to apply processes iteratively. Lightroom can do neither. That's why I very much dislike it for AP.

For terrestrial photography, to each their own. I hardly ever do anything besides AP anymore, so what do I know? Hehe


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.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics