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

advice for a red green color blind guy

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 1hander

1hander

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2019
  • Loc: San Antonio, Texas

Posted 22 October 2021 - 09:18 PM

so i found out recently that im  red green color blind. although i never had a problem with it in the military, red lights, green maps etc etc.passed my color vision tests.... doctors could not explain but blamed on my TBI, any who

 

i do have trouble telling different shades of red and blues and greens aparts now, so will have to rely on you guys advice for this one, the only filter i was planning on using on the 183mcpro was a uvir cut filter. but im in the middle of a bortle 7, im not sure there us a light pollution filter i could use that would not require pst processing.. so am i just going to have to find dark skies or give up. or am i done with this journey before i even started 

rick


  • elmiko, OldManSky and DJL like this

#2 OldManSky

OldManSky

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,764
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Valley Center, CA USA

Posted 22 October 2021 - 09:44 PM

About 8% of males have red-green color blindness - including me.

It is not an impediment to doing either astrophotography or post-processing.

Most of the time you will be able to work visually just fine. When in doubt, learn colors by the numbers (values of RGB that make up colors), and work by the numbers. If need be, have other people look at you work and give you color feedback.

No need to quit anything. Carry on :)


  • dghent, Jaimo!, TelescopeGreg and 3 others like this

#3 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,627
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 22 October 2021 - 10:11 PM

Another approach to consider is monochrome display... where you can still use filtration to tease out structure associated with emission lines, but display the rendition in "shades of gray" from black through white. Many traditionalist astronomers actually prefer this standard as more scientifically useful. Evidence the original PASS N and S surveys collected with the 48" Schmidt Cameras onto 14x14-inch monochrome glass plates as two sets: Red-Leaning (which favor Hα nebular emission) and Blue-Leaning (which favor star clusters and galaxies).    Tom


  • ram812 likes this

#4 DJL

DJL

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 979
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2020

Posted 22 October 2021 - 10:24 PM

I'd suggest going on Astrobin and looking at different versions of the same target using different techniques, or using your camera. See what you like, find out how it was done.

 

I'm in Bortle 6, but have not found light pollution filters that useful. UV/IR is definitely necessary for cameras that don't have it built in, because the IR light is seen by the camera but focused differently by the telescope resulting in star bloat. I also use either Ha or Optolong L-Extreme with my OSC camera. Monochrome images with an Ha filter can show more detail than color images. L-Extreme is like an Ha (red) and Oiii (blue) filter in one filter, and you can pick apart the two colors after capture and change them to any other two colors you like in post processing.

 

With a mono camera and narrowband filters,  you would capture red Ha, red Sii and blue Oiii and then you get to choose what color to turn each of them into. For example, in Hubble Palette, the red Ha is assigned to the green channel, the red Sii is assigned to the red channel and the blue-green Oii is assigned to the blue channel. This frequently results in blue-gold images.  

 

Clear skies!


  • elmiko likes this

#5 TelescopeGreg

TelescopeGreg

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,776
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Auburn, California, USA

Posted 22 October 2021 - 10:50 PM

There are smartphone apps that display the numerical and color name of whatever the camera is pointed at.  I think they're intended for graphic artists.  Aimed at your PC's screen during processing can help with color balancing, especially if you have the screen calibrated first.  The only thing they don't work well for is determining if the bananas are ripe in the supermarket.  Lighting...

 

The various astro processing packages also have tools and utilities that can help.  The Color module in StarTools, for example, can determine a balance based on an average of the many stars within the image.  Works pretty well.  There are also pre-loaded profiles for the common DSLR cameras.

 

Finally, you can always use a custom color palate, such as what images from the Hubble telescope are often rendered in ("the Hubble palate").

 

Bottom line:  Lots of ways to deal with color.  Or just do what makes you happy.


  • bobzeq25, OldManSky and Leia like this

#6 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 26,264
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 22 October 2021 - 11:04 PM

so i found out recently that im  red green color blind. although i never had a problem with it in the military, red lights, green maps etc etc.passed my color vision tests.... doctors could not explain but blamed on my TBI, any who

 

i do have trouble telling different shades of red and blues and greens aparts now, so will have to rely on you guys advice for this one, the only filter i was planning on using on the 183mcpro was a uvir cut filter. but im in the middle of a bortle 7, im not sure there us a light pollution filter i could use that would not require pst processing.. so am i just going to have to find dark skies or give up. or am i done with this journey before i even started 

rick

I'm in Bortle 7.

 

Light pollution filters are not required.  In fact, they can be counterproductive to good images.  Until recently I really didn't use them, now use a dual band on emission nebulae, ONLY.

 

Here are some images from Bortle 7.  No (not so) magic light pollution filters were used.

 

https://www.astrobin.com/263253/J/

 

https://www.astrobin.com/ngyg1r/B/

 

https://www.astrobin.com/196395/

 

Things you can do.  Giving up is not required, either, and I'm sure you have a lot of experience coping with all kinds of things.  <smile>

 

Do Electronically Assisted Astronomy instead of traditional astrophotography.  There's a separate forum for advice.  No post processing is done with EAA, you look at targets in real time.

 

Use gradient reduction in processing to reduce the effects of light pollution.  It does not require color vision.  Astro Pixel Processor has an excellent gradient reduction tool.  All the examples above used gradient reduction. 

 

Either do images for yourself, and don't worry about color.  Or use the histogram to align red, green, and blue.  Not perfect, but will give you color you need not be embarrassed by.


Edited by bobzeq25, 22 October 2021 - 11:05 PM.

  • OldManSky likes this

#7 Leia

Leia

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 24 May 2021

Posted 22 October 2021 - 11:40 PM

Try shooting black and white narrowband. 


  • TOMDEY likes this

#8 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,627
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 23 October 2021 - 12:01 AM

Further thought, rick >>> is our tacit assumption/presumption that there is one ~correct~ colorized rendition that most satisfies the sensibilities of people with "normal" color perception. But that is riddled with disclaimers:

 

>no two people perceive colors the same

>even the CIE etc. ~standard observer~ is an historic experimental construct, simplified to satisfy compact mathematical presentation and then retained because the standardization among users trumps more accurate modeling available now

>the color representation itself is necessarily based on human photopic (day time / bright) vision --- leading to the convoluted counsel that "this is what the colors would look like, if the target were a thousand times (or more) brighter"

>we often prefer to hyper-colorize with 2, 3, or even 4 very narrowband filtrations... which is, by its very nature... artificial

>we like to render the unpopulated regions of "sky" as neutral dark gray

> we like to render sun-like stars as neutral white

 

Those agreed goodness practices are 90% art and only 10% science. Which is fine, but not gospel --- what we do here is dominated by the artistic sense. Pretty pictures to be most-enjoyed by average observers.    Tom


  • bobzeq25, BeltofOrion, TelescopeGreg and 1 other like this

#9 JCDAstro

JCDAstro

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2021

Posted 23 October 2021 - 06:58 AM

There are soo many false color pallettes used in astrophotography that I almost don't think true color matters in some cases. Make an image that is pleasing to your eye and share the color pallette used and then we all get to learn what looks good to your eye!
  • TOMDEY and 1hander like this

#10 cougarone

cougarone

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 165
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Audobon and Paupack, PA

Posted 23 October 2021 - 09:03 AM

Same here, my red-green is pretty bad along with shades of many colors. In the fall up here in PA I barely see all the so called great colors until I put on some special glasses. Thus, my wife provides significant assistance when reprocessing, my second pair of eyes.
  • bobzeq25 and 1hander like this

#11 Oort Cloud

Oort Cloud

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,024
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2020
  • Loc: New Jersey, USA

Posted 23 October 2021 - 09:19 AM

RG colorblind here as well. I really don't know why the call it colorblindness. We still see colors, we just see less discrete shades hues of color. Basically we see in SDR while everyone else is walking around enjoying Dolby Vision. There are tools you can leverage in post processing, like Photometric Color Calibration to give you a good jumping off point, but like others have said, you can always get opinions from others as well. In the end, what matters is that your pictures look good to you. And look on the bright side, camouflage doesn't work on you because it was made to work against normal color vision. smile.gif


Edited by Oort Cloud, 23 October 2021 - 09:21 AM.

  • OldManSky and 1hander like this

#12 Leia

Leia

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 24 May 2021

Posted 23 October 2021 - 09:21 AM

Some basics might be to keep the sky a gray to black and the stars (assuming it's not a red giant) in the blue to white range


  • 1hander likes this

#13 BeltofOrion

BeltofOrion

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 811
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Newfoundland, Canada

Posted 23 October 2021 - 09:37 AM

Further thought, rick >>> is our tacit assumption/presumption that there is one ~correct~ colorized rendition that most satisfies the sensibilities of people with "normal" color perception. But that is riddled with disclaimers:

 

>no two people perceive colors the same

>even the CIE etc. ~standard observer~ is an historic experimental construct, simplified to satisfy compact mathematical presentation and then retained because the standardization among users trumps more accurate modeling available now

>the color representation itself is necessarily based on human photopic (day time / bright) vision --- leading to the convoluted counsel that "this is what the colors would look like, if the target were a thousand times (or more) brighter"

>we often prefer to hyper-colorize with 2, 3, or even 4 very narrowband filtrations... which is, by its very nature... artificial

>we like to render the unpopulated regions of "sky" as neutral dark gray

> we like to render sun-like stars as neutral white

 

Those agreed goodness practices are 90% art and only 10% science. Which is fine, but not gospel --- what we do here is dominated by the artistic sense. Pretty pictures to be most-enjoyed by average observers.    Tom

I like this, Tom! Sort of like the old saying: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."


Edited by BeltofOrion, 23 October 2021 - 09:37 AM.

  • TOMDEY and 1hander like this

#14 1hander

1hander

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2019
  • Loc: San Antonio, Texas

Posted 23 October 2021 - 12:03 PM

thanks fellas 

ive been watching videos and after reading your posts i kinda came to the same conclusions. i wanted to just look at my pics as they come out no processing, i did not know there were apps like the ones mentioned.. as stated above i can see colors just different hues throw me off. but i guess it doesnt really matter as long as they look good to me plus if i look at another picture i can gauge if my colors are close to what others see, for me its 90 percent about the journey and the time required to acquire the data,  like therapy.

 

i will look into apps and post processing software, i already have photoshop just never bother to learn cuz ive always been a what i get is what i get kinda photographer 

thank for the input, it was helpful

rick


  • OldManSky and DJL like this

#15 1hander

1hander

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2019
  • Loc: San Antonio, Texas

Posted 23 October 2021 - 12:06 PM

I'm in Bortle 7.

 

Light pollution filters are not required.  In fact, they can be counterproductive to good images.  Until recently I really didn't use them, now use a dual band on emission nebulae, ONLY.

 

Here are some images from Bortle 7.  No (not so) magic light pollution filters were used.

 

https://www.astrobin.com/263253/J/

 

https://www.astrobin.com/ngyg1r/B/

 

https://www.astrobin.com/196395/

 

Things you can do.  Giving up is not required, either, and I'm sure you have a lot of experience coping with all kinds of things.  <smile>

 

Do Electronically Assisted Astronomy instead of traditional astrophotography.  There's a separate forum for advice.  No post processing is done with EAA, you look at targets in real time.

 

Use gradient reduction in processing to reduce the effects of light pollution.  It does not require color vision.  Astro Pixel Processor has an excellent gradient reduction tool.  All the examples above used gradient reduction. 

 

Either do images for yourself, and don't worry about color.  Or use the histogram to align red, green, and blue.  Not perfect, but will give you color you need not be embarrassed by.

if i can get results half this good i will be completely happy


  • bobzeq25 likes this

#16 elmiko

elmiko

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,220
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Arizona

Posted 23 October 2021 - 06:05 PM

Hi Rick. I would first like to thank you for your Military Service.

I use the L-Extreme filter from Bortle 8 skies. Does a great job with osc cameras. As someone mentioned above, you can manipulate the colors in post processing to colors that are visible to you. 

I think you should give this hobby a try. It's very rewarding.

 

Sua Sponte  Mike



#17 1hander

1hander

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2019
  • Loc: San Antonio, Texas

Posted 23 October 2021 - 06:58 PM

It was a privilege to serve with the men and women i served with.. I intend to do just that ..i was going to try the uv ir only ..then the l enhance or  l pro  and wxperiment with stacking pics from different filters just for the hellofit and see what i end up with ..


Edited by 1hander, 23 October 2021 - 07:02 PM.

  • elmiko and bobzeq25 like this

#18 1hander

1hander

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2019
  • Loc: San Antonio, Texas

Posted 23 October 2021 - 10:18 PM

ive been watvhing vids on doing flats darks etc etc.. 

my only question is what kind of exposure times and gain settings are you guys using with uvir filters and with the l enhance Lpro  light pollution type filters

i assume they all need different exposure times..or what am i looking for when i take a test exposure 

i also assume there is such a thing as over and underexposure\

generally i jump in head first but like to get some info on where to start...why start with blinders on if i dont have to you know

rick


Edited by 1hander, 23 October 2021 - 10:20 PM.


#19 TelescopeGreg

TelescopeGreg

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,776
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Auburn, California, USA

Posted 23 October 2021 - 11:04 PM

ive been watvhing vids on doing flats darks etc etc.. 

my only question is what kind of exposure times and gain settings are you guys using with uvir filters and with the l enhance Lpro  light pollution type filters

i assume they all need different exposure times..or what am i looking for when i take a test exposure 

i also assume there is such a thing as over and underexposure\

generally i jump in head first but like to get some info on where to start...why start with blinders on if i dont have to you know

rick

I find using my UHC filter (sort of like the l-enhance) that the exposures tend to be a bit longer, but it really depends on the target, and light pollution type (spectra).  It's not 2x; maybe 25% more?  Often I just leave the exposure alone from my regular exposure (which probably means my regular exposure is a bit too long).  The UV/IR filter is built into my camera, but UV/IR shouldn't have any effect on exposure.  It's needed for eliminating the bloated stars; consider it baseline.

 

The very narrow l-extreme filter would definitely need more exposure, but again it depends on target and sky.



#20 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 26,264
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 24 October 2021 - 12:07 AM

ive been watvhing vids on doing flats darks etc etc.. 

my only question is what kind of exposure times and gain settings are you guys using with uvir filters and with the l enhance Lpro  light pollution type filters

i assume they all need different exposure times..or what am i looking for when i take a test exposure 

i also assume there is such a thing as over and underexposure\

generally i jump in head first but like to get some info on where to start...why start with blinders on if i dont have to you know

rick

Here's an excellent start.  Proper exposure depends (a whole lot) on your light pollution level, and optical speed (F number).  More light pollution, more optical speed, less exposure.  The tables below will give you a clue.  See how much proper exposure varies with those things.  A great deal.  From less than 10 seconds to 15 minutes.

 

Note that the tables don't say anything about your target.  Adjusting exposure for different targets is an expert tweak, ignore that for now.

 

They're for the 183 mono camera.  For color, multiply the exposures by 3.  For the LEnhance and color, multiply by 10.  Ignore the narrowband tables.

 

https://www.cloudyni...xposure tables

 

I don't recommend the LPro.  The LEnhance should only be used on emission nebulae.

 

Likely it's best to avoid filters altogether until you've done some imaging.  They complicate things, and are far from perfect.  The 183MC, which I own, has a built in UV/IR cut.

 

BUT.  You really need to take and use the camera calibration frames; bias (the 183 doesn't need dark flats), flats, darks.  From the very start.  Without any one of those you are very likely to see very annoying extra light, not related to your target.  It's called "amp glow".  With the 3 camera calibration frames, done and used properly, it disappears.


Edited by bobzeq25, 24 October 2021 - 12:19 AM.

  • elmiko likes this

#21 KLWalsh

KLWalsh

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,164
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2014
  • Loc: North Georgia, USA

Posted 24 October 2021 - 08:34 AM

Interesting thing about Red-Green color blindness.
You may have trouble seeing certain reds or greens, BUT you will actually have the ability to see more variations in green shades than those with ‘normal’ color vision.
If you live in an area when the leaves change color in the Fall, you may notice the trees start to change color before those with ‘normal’ vision do.

By the way, there’s an app to help ‘Color Blind people, available for Windows computers and iphones, called ‘What Color’ that will help you determine what the color is for any location on the screen.

And as others have said, don’t worry about precise colors. The color systems we use that model the human visual system are based on bright (daytime visible) objects that are 2 degrees across or larger. They’re technically not applicable to the faint fuzzies we photograph with our scopes at night.
  • OldManSky likes this

#22 DJL

DJL

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 979
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2020

Posted 24 October 2021 - 11:38 AM

Has anyone tried glasses for color blindness? I gather they have narrowband filters and work for some people. 



#23 1hander

1hander

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2019
  • Loc: San Antonio, Texas

Posted 24 October 2021 - 12:49 PM

Super useful info ..i will stsrt reading again..i thought the 183mcpro had built in uvir cut but wasnt sure..im using that camera as well..ill start looking at the tables and making notes..ill be checking out that color softwar..im actually looking forward to this

I have wondered about color correction glasses but never looked into it ..i might do that too..

 


Edited by 1hander, 24 October 2021 - 02:13 PM.


#24 KLWalsh

KLWalsh

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,164
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2014
  • Loc: North Georgia, USA

Posted 25 October 2021 - 12:13 PM

Has anyone tried glasses for color blindness? I gather they have narrowband filters and work for some people. 

 

I have mild red-green color issues so I bought a pair of Enchroma glasses. They do make some of the colors of the flowers in my wife’s flower garden ‘pop’.
I took them to work and measured the spectral transmission.
Here’s the transmission curve for the visible part of the spectrum.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 76A3438B-0D91-4869-9E99-F26C79C8C807.jpeg


#25 1hander

1hander

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2019
  • Loc: San Antonio, Texas

Posted 25 October 2021 - 03:41 PM

dang you guys are taking me to school here... i really do appreciate it, you all keep me busy learning. on another gripe i found out that the cgx series scopes are having trouble with asiairs.. i hope they get it fixed, but i recon by the time i get around to another mount and monochrone ill have enough experience that ill know the other ways to guide and take pics. 




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