Andromeda Galaxy processed - This is only a beginner's efforts

[Carole]

I know this is a pile of Cr...p compared to the wonderful images you guys are doing, and I've had to really stretch it and convert to B&W, but at least it has given me a bit of confidence to keep going.

This is the original posted on understanding LX

This is the reprocessed effort (cropped).


It is starting to show some faint spirals and NGC 205.  Once I get all my guiding kit (I have it on order), then I can do some longer exposures.  

Carole

[RobertM]

That's a very good effort Carole and certainly on par with what most produce as their first image (just look on the web!).  Keep pushing the envelope, learning about your kit and trying out new techniques.

Robert

[Carole]

Thanks Robert, I guess I should have posted details:

25 Light frames, 3 dark frames total 11mins of each, Light frames 30 - 40 secs each, drk frames around 3 mins each.  
Image taken 8.9.09 my back garden.
DSLR EOS 450D (first try)
No guiding
No CLS filter

Re-processed in photoshop.
converted to B&W because being so stretched (mostly on contrast), the colours looked awful.

Carole

[Mike]

Carole why are your images always so tiny?

[Carole]

Carole why are your images always so tiny?

Don't know

Maybe I have setting wrong on the camera.  I'll have a look, I'm sure I've seen something about size of image somewhere.

This is all a new ball game to me, so bound to get a few things wrong to start with, and only by getting feedback like this can I see what I am doing wrong.

Carole

[RobertM]

3 dark frames

I think you should look at doing Flat field and bias calibration in order to remove those gradients.  That would in turn make it much easier to process.

Robert

[Carole]

I think you should look at doing Flat field and bias calibration

I know what flat's are, is this the same as "flat field"?  
This was my first time at even doing darks plus having to cope with new camera, new system (DSLR), new software new laptop with Vista all on the same night.

The gradient only arrived when I increased the contrast in order to show the spirals.

Will try flats next time.
Unfortunately I haven't taken in what BIAS frames are as yet.  Can you remind me?

Thanks

Carole

[Carole]

Carole why are your images always so tiny?

I think I've sussed out part of the problem.  I was importing from my website instead of the gallery, and I remember now it told me the image was too big and it was going to reduce the size. 

So I have now imported to the gallery. 

There's something I don't understand going on here.
I've looked at the originals.

The original of the below image is 2166 x 1902 but when I import it to the Gallery it is only 799x 702



I think this is a better size.
Carole

[Rick]

When you load images to the gallery it does a bit of twiddling. For small images it makes a thumbnail (with a name starting with "thumb_", sized to fit in a 120x120 box) and displays the full sized image. For large images it makes a thumbnail and an intermediate sized image (with a name starting with "normal_", sized to fit inside an 800x800 box), and this intermediate sized image is the one it displays by default. However, if you click on the displayed image another window will pop up to display the full sized image.

[Carole]

Well that's something new I've learnt, thanks Rick.

so 3rd try with (hopefully) full sized image!!!!

Image deleted - Oh yuk!!!!!
It worked, but my image is not good enough to be displayed at that size.

At least I understand what's going on now.

Carole

[Mac]

I know this is a pile of Cr...p compared to the wonderful images you guys are doing

Not so, its a very good start. you have produced an image.

Don't forget Carol, if you look at everyone's first images, they are exactly the same as the ones you have just taken.
You have just stepped on to the first rung of a very very very long ladder.

Once you get used to all your equipment, setting it up, taking, lights, darks, flats, bias, ect, ect.
You will soon be producing images the same as everyone else.

On a note though, your darks, should be the same length as your lights,
so if you do a light frame of 60 secs, take a dark of 60 secs, that way the dark will have the same amount of noise as your light
If you take a longer dark frame, then you are introducing more noise to the dark frame, and when that is removed from the light frame,
you will be removing information from your data where the extra noise is.

Keep up the good work, you'll get there in the end.

Don't forget a budgie with a blunt beak was born to suck seed.

Mac.

[Mike]

It's a pretty commendable image for a new starter Carole.

Like Mac said you have a lot to learn and a long way to go yet, like we all did, before you can produce images as good as the rest of the guys.

Or you could cheat like Robert and just buy £250,000 of Uber-Kit

[Carole]

Thanks Mac and Mike,

Yes I have a lot to learn, and am very aware of this.  

Even though it's taking me a lot longer than most, and I don't have the technical know how, I am determined to keep going and produce some half decent images.  

Thanks for the advice on the darks Mac, I think it will be easier when I can do longer subs.  In my ignorance I just thought is had to be the same total length.  

I have now bought myself a book on imaging, so hopefully I will be able to learn from that, as well as the useful advice offered on the forum.

Carole

[MarkS]

Carole,

You've done well - you've taken a pile of images, stacked them and produced a result! 
It's better than my first Andromeda image:
http://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/androm_stacked.jpg

Even after subtracting the light pollution I could only manage this:
http://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/androm.jpg
I was dead chuffed with that result.  And don't even mention the coma!! 

As for darks, you may be accidently right at the cusp of imaging techniques - there are very good reasons for taking darks whose exposure times are multiples of those of the lights - in fact I plan to start doing this myself soon.  The problem is that most processing packages don't know how to compensate for it (one good reason I prefer using IRIS!!)  However, for now, stick to Mac's advice and keep them the same length.

The Andromeda Galaxy is virtually impossible to image in a light polluted area without filters.  Try a bright nebula (Dumbbell?) or a Globular Cluster or Pleiades instead.

Mark

[Carole]

Thanks for that Mark. 
Your first image (the one before you subtracted the light pollution, looks like my one before I processed). 

The Andromeda Galaxy is virtually impossible to image in a light polluted area without filters.  Try a bright nebula (Dumbbell?) or a Globular Cluster or Pleiades instead.

The reason I went for Andromeda, was because I had actually tried to get M13 but failed to be able to focus and see it via the DSLR (remember I did this before getting my live view going and was struggling to see through the camera view finder!!!!) I can't image Pleides at the moment in my back garden unless I stay up VERY late as it's behind my house.  I guess I really went for Andromeda because it was relatively easy to see.  As I get more experienced at finding anf focusing objects with the DSLR, I'll try the others. 

I think I am going to just "go for it" and order the CLS filter, which is the last item I need.  That will make £1043 I will have spent this month on Astronomy kit!!!!  Thank goodness I have the opportunity to work after retirement!!!

Have got the Guide cable, am waiting for the port interface, guide rings and side by side bar - and there's a postal strike!!!

Thanks every-one for your encouragement.

Carole