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.

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 ??

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

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 ?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

And yes, I did freeze that night!

Nate

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.

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

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.

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