Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

Started Apr 3, 2016 | Discussions
BlackgumNate Regular Member • Posts: 345
Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

Hello all,

Roughly a month ago, under a dark sky, I tried to shoot Orion.

I ended up with ~39 exposures: D5300, 85mm f/4 ISO1600, 100 seconds. For what it's worth it was around -14F that night.

After Lightroom conversion, I tried a photoshop median stack, and a DSS stack, and processed each a number of times in Photoshop and usually ended up with something similar to the image attached. Honestly, I'd hoped there was more to show from the data collected, and perhaps there is, but not for me now. I plan to try a demo of Pixinsight soon but would like to have the whole 'darks, flats, and bias' thing figured out first.

I'd be pleased if anyone would like to try their hand at the data. The Out Of Camera Raw files, the DSS stack, and my two results are in this dropbox file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o0mkj7li5d16sl1/AABvskM2WXVXDtpKDA_FCv2Ha?dl=0

Thanks for looking,

Nate

Nikon D5300
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Allien
Allien Regular Member • Posts: 402
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

That is very nice sir.

IMO there isn't much that PI could do to improve that image.  It doesn't hurt to try though.

swimswithtrout Senior Member • Posts: 2,539
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

Allien wrote:

That is very nice sir.

IMO there isn't much that PI could do to improve that image. It doesn't hurt to try though.

PI can help a LOT !

I shot the the exact same scene, using the exact same lens on the exact same camera, from my white zone yard a few months ago , using 45 sec subs.

This is all I could do in PS.

Exact same stack from DDS, but processed in PI

The OP probably still has that much "hidden data" in his data.

BlackgumNate, why are you pre-proccesing your subs in Lightroom instead of just putting the RAWS in DSS ??

Allien
Allien Regular Member • Posts: 402
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

swimswithtrout wrote:

Allien wrote:

That is very nice sir.

IMO there isn't much that PI could do to improve that image. It doesn't hurt to try though.

PI can help a LOT !

Lets break this down here.

I shot the the exact same scene,

Then the least you could have done is post a comparable crop rather then have us contort our necks.

using the exact same lens on the exact same camera, from my white zone yard a few months ago , using 45 sec subs.

This is all I could do in PS.

Maybe that is because that is just about all there is?

Exact same stack from DDS, but processed in PI

The OP probably still has that much "hidden data" in his data.

There isn't anything "hidden" in your PI picture that I cannot easily see in the first image. In fact your PI processing as obscured details.

What you have done:

-HDR'd the nebula, big deal, you've made a wonderfully bright object darker for your subjective amusement.

-You have added noise to the overall image and already significant diffraction spikes, then tried to compensate resulting in puffy stars, air-brushed looking stars.

-You've subjectively shrunk your background stars probably because you could not stand, nor correct the noise you've created with your PI processing.

-Shown a 2 mega pixel image instead of the real 20 mega pixel mess.

-Both before and after images have very pink nebulas.

-I feel like I should be cleaning grease off of my monitor.

-etc, etc.

BlackgumNate, why are you pre-proccesing your subs in Lightroom instead of just putting the RAWS in DSS ??

Ya BlackgumNate, why aren't you doing it the same as the majority?

The reality Nate's image is much, much better then the PixInsight examples you've posted.

Seriously, have a look at Nate's image in "100% details" and then come back here with a straight face and tell me your PI example is something to strive for. Nate should be giving us lessons. lol

swimswithtrout Senior Member • Posts: 2,539
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.
1

Allien wrote:

There isn't anything "hidden" in your PI picture that I cannot easily see in the first image. In fact your PI processing as obscured details.

What you have done:

-HDR'd the nebula, big deal, you've made a wonderfully bright object darker for your subjective amusement.

-You have added noise to the overall image and already significant diffraction spikes, then tried to compensate resulting in puffy stars, air-brushed looking stars.

-You've subjectively shrunk your background stars probably because you could not stand, nor correct the noise you've created with your PI processing.

-Shown a 2 mega pixel image instead of the real 20 mega pixel mess.

-Both before and after images have very pink nebulas.

-I feel like I should be cleaning grease off of my monitor.

-etc, etc.

You'd better take this up with one of the greatest PI experts there is, David Ault.

I didn't do the PI processing, he did.

I don't have PI.

I sent my DDS stack to him, he sent the full frame PI processed jpeg back to me. I just resized it to keep upload /download times reasonable .

Do I need to send you his contact info ?

Allien
Allien Regular Member • Posts: 402
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

swimswithtrout wrote:

Allien wrote:

There isn't anything "hidden" in your PI picture that I cannot easily see in the first image. In fact your PI processing as obscured details.

What you have done:

-HDR'd the nebula, big deal, you've made a wonderfully bright object darker for your subjective amusement.

-You have added noise to the overall image and already significant diffraction spikes, then tried to compensate resulting in puffy stars, air-brushed looking stars.

-You've subjectively shrunk your background stars probably because you could not stand, nor correct the noise you've created with your PI processing.

-Shown a 2 mega pixel image instead of the real 20 mega pixel mess.

-Both before and after images have very pink nebulas.

-I feel like I should be cleaning grease off of my monitor.

-etc, etc.

You'd better take this up with one of the greatest PI experts there is, David Ault.

I didn't do the PI processing, he did.

This doesn't interest me.

I don't have PI.

So why on earth are you saying Nate is going to better his/her photo if you don't even have the software and the expert cant even do much with it other then applying Vaseline to the lens... lol never mind.

I sent my DDS stack to him, he sent the full frame PI processed jpeg back to me. I just resized it to keep upload /download times reasonable .

Reasonable?, you mean by delivering a photo a half of the width of my screen in 2016 is a big deal? That won't even fill the screen on my $80 smartphone. Tell me where can I donate to the "Save the MB Foundation".

Do I need to send you his contact info ?

No thank you. Nice of you to throw your friend under the bus though, this made me laugh pretty good I must admit.

OP BlackgumNate Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

Allien wrote:

That is very nice sir.

IMO there isn't much that PI could do to improve that image. It doesn't hurt to try though.

Thank you for the kind words, Allien. Part of me thought you might roast me for over-processing.

I understand PP is very subjective and I certainly appreciate your perspective.

Thanks again,

Nate

OP BlackgumNate Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

swimswithtrout wrote:

Allien wrote:

That is very nice sir.

IMO there isn't much that PI could do to improve that image. It doesn't hurt to try though.

PI can help a LOT !

I shot the the exact same scene, using the exact same lens on the exact same camera, from my white zone yard a few months ago , using 45 sec subs.

This is all I could do in PS.

Exact same stack from DDS, but processed in PI

The OP probably still has that much "hidden data" in his data.

BlackgumNate, why are you pre-proccesing your subs in Lightroom instead of just putting the RAWS in DSS ??

Thanks Swims, your images were what inspired me to give this a whirl, and I like yours a lot! There's a 'fineness' to your PI version that I quite like. Is your camera modded? The redness in yours that tells me it might be.

Anyone is welcome to run mine through the PI machine, I'd be happy to see any result. Please feel free to direct your friend to the files.

Thanks again for your help.

Nate

rnclark Senior Member • Posts: 2,205
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

swimswithtrout wrote:

Allien wrote:

That is very nice sir.

IMO there isn't much that PI could do to improve that image. It doesn't hurt to try though.

PI can help a LOT !

I shot the the exact same scene, using the exact same lens on the exact same camera, from my white zone yard a few months ago , using 45 sec subs.

This is all I could do in PS.

Exact same stack from DDS, but processed in PI

The OP probably still has that much "hidden data" in his data.

My take on the above two images:

The PS processed image is sharper with smoother transitions, but the highlights and color have been lost.

The PI processed image is less sharp and suffers from significant color splotchiness that is so common that I see coming out of some astro imaging precessing systems.  But the highlight s are handled better and the color is better.  There are also dark holes around stars from over sharpening.  And oddly, even though over sharpened, the stars look fuzzy--how do you do that?

Seems that if the best of each could be put into one image it would be quite impressive.

It is certainly possible to handle the highlights better in PS and maintain good color.  I assume PI could do better with splotchiness and sharpness.  But it seems common  for PI results to have stars that look like the image was made on a hazy night.  Any idea what processing steps cause that?

BlackgumNate, why are you pre-proccesing your subs in Lightroom instead of just putting the RAWS in DSS ??

Because one can potentially get a better result, of course depending on downstream processing.

Roger

OP BlackgumNate Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

rnclark wrote:

swimswithtrout wrote:

Allien wrote:

That is very nice sir.

IMO there isn't much that PI could do to improve that image. It doesn't hurt to try though.

PI can help a LOT !

I shot the the exact same scene, using the exact same lens on the exact same camera, from my white zone yard a few months ago , using 45 sec subs.

This is all I could do in PS.

Exact same stack from DDS, but processed in PI

The OP probably still has that much "hidden data" in his data.

My take on the above two images:

The PS processed image is sharper with smoother transitions, but the highlights and color have been lost.

The PI processed image is less sharp and suffers from significant color splotchiness that is so common that I see coming out of some astro imaging precessing systems. But the highlight s are handled better and the color is better. There are also dark holes around stars from over sharpening. And oddly, even though over sharpened, the stars look fuzzy--how do you do that?

Seems that if the best of each could be put into one image it would be quite impressive.

It is certainly possible to handle the highlights better in PS and maintain good color. I assume PI could do better with splotchiness and sharpness. But it seems common for PI results to have stars that look like the image was made on a hazy night. Any idea what processing steps cause that?

BlackgumNate, why are you pre-proccesing your subs in Lightroom instead of just putting the RAWS in DSS ??

Because one can potentially get a better result, of course depending on downstream processing.

Roger

Thanks, Roger, thoughtful observations.

Could you offer your take on the first image in the thread, with perhaps some CC? Always looking to improve here and any help would be most appreciated.

Thanks again,

Nate

rnclark Senior Member • Posts: 2,205
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

BlackgumNate wrote:

Thanks, Roger, thoughtful observations.

Could you offer your take on the first image in the thread, with perhaps some CC? Always looking to improve here and any help would be most appreciated.

Thanks again,

Nate

Hi Nate,

It does appear there is more information in your image than you brought out.  What seems odd is the lack of detail in the nebulae. They seem blurred relative to the stars.  There is very little noise in the nebulae, so what noise reduction did you do?  Then of course, the loss of color and detail in the bright parts of the nebula (e.g. M42 is just gray).  Understanding and fixing these to issues will be a key to improving.

One thing that can help is masking off bright nebulae when stretching to bring out the faint stuff.  The trick is feathering the selection so the result looks natural.

Any saturation enhancement should be done only at the end and no further stretching after that, or you end up with color halos and the halos get further enhanced with more stretching, possible clipping around bright stars.

Check that stacking worked well: combine the aligned images with maximum (rather than median or sigma clipped average).  Maximum will so outlier stars.  Please post results of the max combine here.

Roger

swimswithtrout Senior Member • Posts: 2,539
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

rnclark wrote:

swimswithtrout wrote:

Allien wrote:

That is very nice sir.

IMO there isn't much that PI could do to improve that image. It doesn't hurt to try though.

PI can help a LOT !

I shot the the exact same scene, using the exact same lens on the exact same camera, from my white zone yard a few months ago , using 45 sec subs.

This is all I could do in PS.

Exact same stack from DDS, but processed in PI

The OP probably still has that much "hidden data" in his data.

My take on the above two images:

The PS processed image is sharper with smoother transitions, but the highlights and color have been lost.

The PI processed image is less sharp and suffers from significant color splotchiness that is so common that I see coming out of some astro imaging precessing systems. But the highlight s are handled better and the color is better. There are also dark holes around stars from over sharpening. And oddly, even though over sharpened, the stars look fuzzy--how do you do that?

Seems that if the best of each could be put into one image it would be quite impressive.

It is certainly possible to handle the highlights better in PS and maintain good color. I assume PI could do better with splotchiness and sharpness. But it seems common for PI results to have stars that look like the image was made on a hazy night. Any idea what processing steps cause that?

BlackgumNate, why are you pre-proccesing your subs in Lightroom instead of just putting the RAWS in DSS ??

Because one can potentially get a better result, of course depending on downstream processing.

Roger

I beg to differ Roger.

There is no "color noise"/ "splotchiness" in the PI image. PI removed the background noise and reveals the dust clouds that I thought were color "noise" and tried to eliminate them in my PS image.

Also, consider the fact the above image was collected on a night that was ~ 17.0 mag arc sec^2 that required using 165 X 45" subs, ISO 400, and f5 with the 85mm lens to try to cut through the murk and just keep the histo at ~1/3 and below .. Pristine  "White Zone"  skies

.

Sir Canon
Sir Canon Senior Member • Posts: 1,547
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.
1

going to try to process it even though it might not be much better.

always fun to give it a whirl on someone elses data that you didnt freeze to death getting.  

-- hide signature --

Campaign to revamp Dpr's image compression!
I tend to overdo things

 Sir Canon's gear list:Sir Canon's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS1 Canon EOS 350D Canon EOS 550D Canon EOS 700D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +6 more
Allien
Allien Regular Member • Posts: 402
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

Sir Canon wrote:

going to try to process it even though it might not be much better.

always fun to give it a whirl on someone elses data that you didnt freeze to death getting.

-- hide signature --

Campaign to revamp Dpr's image compression!
I tend to overdo things

I was hoping you would give it a try.

My only critique of the photo is that is a little purple. It looks great full frame, but a little too purple when zoomed in. If you can keep that purplish full frame feel but reduce the purplish cast on the whiter stars close up that would be good.

I am indifferent to the Nebula, I know folks do a lot of different things to this region, so I don't have much of an opinion there, but what I will say that with Nate's wispy transparent nebula I feel as though I can see the stars behind the dust clouds surrounding the nebula. I'm sure they are there in others photo's, but I just never really took note before, as with typically heavy processing you loose what little sense of depth you might get from an astro-photograph.

That is my main beef with the background extraction and gradient removers etc. They might remove the backgrounds to some degree, but they ruin the nuance and strip away the texture of the image. It's not really just my opinion, that is just the way it works. Everything looks 2-dimensional after. The whole point of using fast lenses and long exposures is to capture some of that background color. I learned early on from rnclark that the sky is anything but black.

Sometimes dark smoke is just hard to see against a dark background. Sometimes we get some LP gradient. C'est la vie. I prefer the more natural images that capture gradients, because they do better with backgrounds.

Anyhow I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

OP BlackgumNate Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

rnclark wrote:

BlackgumNate wrote:

Thanks, Roger, thoughtful observations.

Could you offer your take on the first image in the thread, with perhaps some CC? Always looking to improve here and any help would be most appreciated.

Thanks again,

Nate

Hi Nate,

It does appear there is more information in your image than you brought out. What seems odd is the lack of detail in the nebulae. They seem blurred relative to the stars. There is very little noise in the nebulae, so what noise reduction did you do? Then of course, the loss of color and detail in the bright parts of the nebula (e.g. M42 is just gray). Understanding and fixing these to issues will be a key to improving.

One thing that can help is masking off bright nebulae when stretching to bring out the faint stuff. The trick is feathering the selection so the result looks natural.

Any saturation enhancement should be done only at the end and no further stretching after that, or you end up with color halos and the halos get further enhanced with more stretching, possible clipping around bright stars.

Check that stacking worked well: combine the aligned images with maximum (rather than median or sigma clipped average). Maximum will so outlier stars. Please post results of the max combine here.

Roger

Thanks Roger, much appreciated. Yes, the halos around some of those stars were really bugging me, I'll try again taking your advice. I'll try a different stack as well.

Thanks again, very helpful.

Nate

OP BlackgumNate Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

Sir Canon wrote:

going to try to process it even though it might not be much better.

always fun to give it a whirl on someone elses data that you didnt freeze to death getting.

-- hide signature --

Campaign to revamp Dpr's image compression!
I tend to overdo things

Have at er, Sir, I'll look forward to it.

And yes, I did freeze that night!

Nate

OP BlackgumNate Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

Allien wrote:

Sir Canon wrote:

going to try to process it even though it might not be much better.

always fun to give it a whirl on someone elses data that you didnt freeze to death getting.

-- hide signature --

Campaign to revamp Dpr's image compression!
I tend to overdo things

I was hoping you would give it a try.

My only critique of the photo is that is a little purple. It looks great full frame, but a little too purple when zoomed in. If you can keep that purplish full frame feel but reduce the purplish cast on the whiter stars close up that would be good.

I am indifferent to the Nebula, I know folks do a lot of different things to this region, so I don't have much of an opinion there, but what I will say that with Nate's wispy transparent nebula I feel as though I can see the stars behind the dust clouds surrounding the nebula. I'm sure they are there in others photo's, but I just never really took note before, as with typically heavy processing you loose what little sense of depth you might get from an astro-photograph.

That is my main beef with the background extraction and gradient removers etc. They might remove the backgrounds to some degree, but they ruin the nuance and strip away the texture of the image. It's not really just my opinion, that is just the way it works. Everything looks 2-dimensional after. The whole point of using fast lenses and long exposures is to capture some of that background color. I learned early on from rnclark that the sky is anything but black.

Sometimes dark smoke is just hard to see against a dark background. Sometimes we get some LP gradient. C'est la vie. I prefer the more natural images that capture gradients, because they do better with backgrounds.

Anyhow I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Thanks Allien, thoughtful input. I'll watch the colour in my next attempt.

You're right too about the 'background' colour; I've seen some very high quality images of the area that show rich colour almost throughout. Certainly worth remembering lest one try seek a black area where there shouldn't be, and isn't one, at all.

Thanks again,

Nate

Sir Canon
Sir Canon Senior Member • Posts: 1,547
Re: Orion CC, and feel free to show me up.

BlackgumNate wrote:

Hello all,

Roughly a month ago, under a dark sky, I tried to shoot Orion.

I ended up with ~39 exposures: D5300, 85mm f/4 ISO1600, 100 seconds. For what it's worth it was around -14F that night.

After Lightroom conversion, I tried a photoshop median stack, and a DSS stack, and processed each a number of times in Photoshop and usually ended up with something similar to the image attached. Honestly, I'd hoped there was more to show from the data collected, and perhaps there is, but not for me now. I plan to try a demo of Pixinsight soon but would like to have the whole 'darks, flats, and bias' thing figured out first.

I'd be pleased if anyone would like to try their hand at the data. The Out Of Camera Raw files, the DSS stack, and my two results are in this dropbox file here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o0mkj7li5d16sl1/AABvskM2WXVXDtpKDA_FCv2Ha?dl=0

Thanks for looking,

Nate

heres my edit. its blotchy but reveals a lot of data

-- hide signature --

Campaign to revamp Dpr's image compression!
I tend to overdo things

 Sir Canon's gear list:Sir Canon's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS1 Canon EOS 350D Canon EOS 550D Canon EOS 700D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +6 more
swimswithtrout Senior Member • Posts: 2,539
I tried your DSS file

It's all screwed up from the get-go. I'm downloading the RAW's and will stack them myself without the intervening "Lightroom" processing.

swimswithtrout Senior Member • Posts: 2,539
Here's My Version
1

Your DSS stack is jacked. I don't know what you did in Lightroom but it totally screwed everything up !

I downloaded your RAW's and stacked them in DSS. Ten minutes in CS5 yields this. ( PI could make it twice as good) and makes me realize I REALLY need to get out to a dark site soon !!

Congrats, that's a wallhanger !

Edit: 1 hr later

A redo, since I didn't keep the full size image before the above resize. Here's the full frame completely reproccesed. Again, nothing but a 10 minute PP using CS5 on the original DSS stack from your RAW's

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads