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

Pleiades M45 TOTAL FAIL!

Beginner DSLR
  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 meach8

meach8

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2021

Posted 06 March 2021 - 03:09 PM

Pleiades M45 TOTAL FAIL!  80xISO400_120s (+) 50xISO800_120s for a total of 4.3 hours of exposure time. ES ED102 triplet, unmodified Canon t5i, Optolong L-pro filter and stacked by DSS. .jpeg version of one ISO800 sub attached.
No color, very little nebulosity and totally unable (for me) to process in Ps. Four hours of exposure over two clear nights which are hard to come by this year in the Pac NW totally wasted. if not for covid, I would be part of an astronomy group, member interaction would speed up my learning curve but now I’m left with blindly taking shots in the dark and waiting to see what happens.
No idea why it failed so poorly, it felt so good while imaging. Will try to double exposure to 4-min. Pleiades is on its way out hoping for two clear nights soon.

Attached Thumbnails

  • L_0005_ISO800_120s__1080.jpg

  • chrysalis likes this

#2 meansrt

meansrt

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 05 May 2020

Posted 06 March 2021 - 03:14 PM

Did you take flat frames as well? Can we see the end result stack or maybe get a link to download the file? Also I assume you took and stacked RAW images right? 


Edited by meansrt, 06 March 2021 - 03:14 PM.


#3 sn2006gy

sn2006gy

    Vendor - Rockchuck Summit Observatory

  • ****-
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1,542
  • Joined: 04 May 2020
  • Loc: Austin, TX

Posted 06 March 2021 - 03:14 PM

Pleiades is bright and total integration time is king, so with my OSC I did 380x30 second subs.

 

Do you have a master to share so we can stretch, color calibrate and see if we can surface more of the details?

 

Going longer subs i don't think will be advantageous on a DSLR  and this object.


  • dswtan and meach8 like this

#4 David Boulanger

David Boulanger

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Naples, Florida

Posted 06 March 2021 - 03:15 PM

Did you stretch it?


  • dswtan likes this

#5 Ken Sturrock

Ken Sturrock

    Cardinal Ximenez

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 9,922
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 06 March 2021 - 03:18 PM

Welcome to Cloudy Nights.

 

Assuming that you wanted advice: To build on Byron and Robert, did you calibrate it? You'll also have to color balance it and deal with noise. For example, I downloaded the picture from your post above and I pulled out some nebulosity around the stars. Unfortunately, it looks like you need flats and there were too many compression artifacts to get a smooth background. If you post the originals (on a file sharing site) then folks can look at it and give you some pointers.

 

Screen Shot 2021-03-06 at 13.20.32.png


  • mtc, RedLionNJ, cybermayberry and 4 others like this

#6 sbharrat

sbharrat

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2020
  • Loc: NJ, USA

Posted 06 March 2021 - 05:29 PM

Pleiades M45 TOTAL FAIL!  80xISO400_120s (+) 50xISO800_120s for a total of 4.3 hours of exposure time. ES ED102 triplet, unmodified Canon t5i, Optolong L-pro filter and stacked by DSS. .jpeg version of one ISO800 sub attached.
...

I think some people will say that the L-pro filter might be part of the problem. I can't say definitively but I know I was able to see *some* nebulosity in around this integration time with an unmodified Canon 1000D (Rebel XS) without a filter. 


  • bobzeq25 and mariemarie like this

#7 RogerM

RogerM

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2020
  • Loc: California

Posted 06 March 2021 - 06:45 PM

Welcome to Cloudy Nights.

 

Assuming that you wanted advice: To build on Byron and Robert, did you calibrate it? You'll also have to color balance it and deal with noise. For example, I downloaded the picture from your post above and I pulled out some nebulosity around the stars. Unfortunately, it looks like you need flats and there were too many compression artifacts to get a smooth background. If you post the originals (on a file sharing site) then folks can look at it and give you some pointers.

 

attachicon.gifScreen Shot 2021-03-06 at 13.20.32.png

+1 on the upload to a file sharing site.  I too saw nebulosity in that one sub that you posted.  I can't imagine that the data is not workable seeing as how you got nearly double the time than most people do typically so I somewhat suspect that something else is going on within the DSS processing.  

 

I think some people will say that the L-pro filter might be part of the problem. I can't say definitively but I know I was able to see *some* nebulosity in around this integration time with an unmodified Canon 1000D (Rebel XS) without a filter. 

There is nothing wrong with using the L-Pro.  It is essentially a tri-band that has a bandpass which encompasses the blue nebulosity of M45.  This cropped image of a W.I.P. was taken with my DSLR using the L-Pro filter, approximately 300mm @ f/8, 60x2 min subs.

 

Here is another imager's result using the L-Pro filter.

Attached Thumbnails

  • M45_Pleiades_2020_11_12_cropped.jpg

  • meach8 likes this

#8 sbharrat

sbharrat

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2020
  • Loc: NJ, USA

Posted 06 March 2021 - 10:37 PM

...  

 

There is nothing wrong with using the L-Pro.  It is essentially a tri-band that has a bandpass which encompasses the blue nebulosity of M45.  This cropped image of a W.I.P. was taken with my DSLR using the L-Pro filter, approximately 300mm @ f/8, 60x2 min subs.

 

Here is another imager's result using the L-Pro filter.

Good to know. I have been avoiding using the L-Pro on broadband targets based on discussions about filters on various CN threads... 


  • meach8 likes this

#9 unimatrix0

unimatrix0

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2021

Posted 06 March 2021 - 11:52 PM

Pleiades M45 TOTAL FAIL!  80xISO400_120s (+) 50xISO800_120s for a total of 4.3 hours of exposure time. ES ED102 triplet, unmodified Canon t5i, Optolong L-pro filter and stacked by DSS. .jpeg version of one ISO800 sub attached.
No color, very little nebulosity and totally unable (for me) to process in Ps. Four hours of exposure over two clear nights which are hard to come by this year in the Pac NW totally wasted. if not for covid, I would be part of an astronomy group, member interaction would speed up my learning curve but now I’m left with blindly taking shots in the dark and waiting to see what happens.
No idea why it failed so poorly, it felt so good while imaging. Will try to double exposure to 4-min. Pleiades is on its way out hoping for two clear nights soon.

This sounds like integration issue.  Those stacks should produce much more. I'm not familiar with that camera, but just one hour with my Pentax produced (see image) . On an Alt+Az mount. 
Either something with the post processing or the last time I had bad images was due to fog/haze. Those will naturally kill off all the details. 

pledsi.png


Edited by unimatrix0, 06 March 2021 - 11:53 PM.


#10 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,886
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 07 March 2021 - 12:22 AM

The LPro IS hurting the image by reducing signal.  You could maybe get something like the image in #7 (pretty bad) with it.  You could get something _much_ better without it.  These filters are pretty much good for emission nebulae, ONLY.

 

Processing is likely another problem.  Among other things there's a strong gradient from light pollution.   I strongly recommend Astro Pixel Processor.  It calibrates, stacks, and processes in just one program, that's a serious advantage, avoids a lot of problems.  Has an excellent gradient reduction tool for reducing the effects of light pollution, _without_ reducing signal.

 

It's $200.  You have way more than that invested in the first half of this.  Spending $200 to do the second half better is hardly extravagant.


  • AhBok and Cfeastside like this

#11 rj144

rj144

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2020

Posted 07 March 2021 - 01:35 AM

Do we know what his final stacked image looks like?

 

He posted one sub, right?



#12 PederP

PederP

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 23 May 2020
  • Loc: Denmark

Posted 07 March 2021 - 02:13 AM

Hi.

Data should be theresmile.gif It looks like it is there if that is one sub. You see a little faint hin of nebulosity, that is not bad for a 2 minutte DSLR exposure.

 

Nothing wrong with the L-pro for this target.

Here is a M45 of mine using a startracker, zoomlens, L-pro and dslr.

M45

Edited by PederP, 07 March 2021 - 02:44 AM.

  • meach8 likes this

#13 meach8

meach8

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2021

Posted 07 March 2021 - 02:50 AM

Wow, thanks for all your response.  I did shoot calibration frames and stacked in DSS.  Processed in Ps levels, stretch, camera raw and anything else I could think of.
20-darks
20-flats
100-bias
Stacked using the group tabs for ISO400 & ISO800…many times with different quantities of calibration frames. I would love to post a link to the original but don’t know how.



#14 Mike in Rancho

Mike in Rancho

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2020
  • Loc: Alta Loma, CA

Posted 07 March 2021 - 04:33 AM

Google Drive and Dropbox are the most common ways of letting everyone download a stack, just make sure it's shared to anyone with the link.

 

Each ISO set had their own calibration frames?  One would think you should have been able to stretch out some reflective nebulosity pretty easily, if it was there, and especially if the nights were nice and clear as you said they were.

 

Which maybe points toward your DSS settings.  And/or, misuse of groups.  Which I guess could also be considered a DSS "setting" in a way.

 

Any unusual boxes checked off?  Did you post-process from the the autosave.fts?  Did you have any files in the Main Group that shouldn't be globally applied (i.e. to all lights in every group)?



#15 rj144

rj144

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2020

Posted 07 March 2021 - 12:27 PM

What does your final pic look like?



#16 xanadu30

xanadu30

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2020
  • Loc: Oshkosh, WI

Posted 07 March 2021 - 01:11 PM

I just took this last Wednesday, with my 6" Newtonian and my DSLR.  No filters, and only 50 45" exposures.  Processed with Startools.  If I was able to draw this out in such little time, I would think your data should be full of good stuff.  Like others have said, can we see a picture of your finished photo?  Or, the original stacked file that we could play around with?

 
 
pleiades small.jpg


#17 meach8

meach8

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2021

Posted 07 March 2021 - 02:47 PM

ok, lets see if this works I did not reduce the file size.

link to original .tif

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing



#18 PederP

PederP

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 23 May 2020
  • Loc: Denmark

Posted 07 March 2021 - 03:04 PM

This is just ABE and a linear stretch + snr.

hjaelp.jpg

You got some nebulosity but also something that looks like a problem with your calibration frames.

Greenish gradient in the right side, and what to me looks like a flat-frame problem.


Edited by PederP, 07 March 2021 - 03:09 PM.

  • meansrt and meach8 like this

#19 F.Meiresonne

F.Meiresonne

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,028
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2003
  • Loc: Eeklo,Belgium

Posted 07 March 2021 - 03:22 PM

Quick run through ST

 

There is definitely  quite some nebulosity.

 

Buth much green,and gradients ...

 

No real idea what causing it though....

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • M45.jpg

  • limeyx and meach8 like this

#20 cybermayberry

cybermayberry

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2010

Posted 07 March 2021 - 04:21 PM

I agree with what other have stated already, the issue is with your flats.

I did a very quick crop, background extraction, stretch, and curve's adjustments. 


Edited by cybermayberry, 07 March 2021 - 04:27 PM.

  • kathyastro, limeyx and meach8 like this

#21 meach8

meach8

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2021

Posted 07 March 2021 - 04:46 PM

I agree with what other have stated already, the issue is with your flats.

I did a very quick crop, background extraction, stretch, and curve's adjustments. 

this isn't a quick adjustment of MY original, is it?.....it's beautiful



#22 Cfeastside

Cfeastside

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2020
  • Loc: Eastern sierra California

Posted 07 March 2021 - 05:35 PM

certainly would be frustrating for sure.  but there must be good data there just need to post process it.  maybe try free trial version of astro pixel processor.  i have had really good results and i'm just getting into AP.  It definitely helps having a photo background and processing from that, but APP really is pretty quick to pick up.  give it a go.  have APP stack your lights and any darks, flats, etc. and then you can edit the light pollution and set basic post processing.


  • bobzeq25 and meach8 like this

#23 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,886
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 07 March 2021 - 07:05 PM

Here's my attempt at processing your data.  Quick 10 minute hack job in PixInsight.  Still recommending Astro Pixel Processor, does 90% as good a job in much less time (both learning and using).

 

Better version than the (required) crummy CN jpg here.

 

https://www.astrobin.com/7upw11/

 

another's M45.jpg


Edited by bobzeq25, 07 March 2021 - 07:16 PM.

  • cybermayberry, limeyx, MrDan and 1 other like this

#24 NatureKnyt

NatureKnyt

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020

Posted 07 March 2021 - 07:17 PM

Here's my attempt at processing your data.  Quick 10 minute hack job in PixInsight.  For beginners I recommend Astro Pixel Processor, does 90% as good in much less time (both learning and using).

 

Better version than the (required) crummy CN jpg here.

 

https://www.astrobin.com/7upw11/

 

attachicon.gifanother's M45.jpg

As a new user of APP, it does some magical stuff. However my problem is after doing all the "left side" stuff, the right side seems ... brutish? Just pulling levers impacting the whole image right? I seem to see a lot of people taking it out of APP into PS or similar to finish. Is there more room to grow with the right side?

 

I'm sure if I had perfect data it would come out better, but given what I've seen people do with less than perfect data outside APP, I'm left wondering what I'm missing. 



#25 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,886
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 07 March 2021 - 07:22 PM

As a new user of APP, it does some magical stuff. However my problem is after doing all the "left side" stuff, the right side seems ... brutish? Just pulling levers impacting the whole image right? I seem to see a lot of people taking it out of APP into PS or similar to finish. Is there more room to grow with the right side?

 

I'm sure if I had perfect data it would come out better, but given what I've seen people do with less than perfect data outside APP, I'm left wondering what I'm missing. 

You can do a good job using PS after APP.  But you can also do a good job with just APP, if you learn to use it well.

 

Something of a personal choice. 

 

But, if you think you may later move to PI, I'd learn APP better, and do it all in APP.  It's better preparation.


Edited by bobzeq25, 07 March 2021 - 07:23 PM.

  • meach8 likes 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.


Recent Topics





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Beginner, DSLR



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics