›

NB Fast Track Tutorial 2 - Great results with provided Wizard light masters - My data looked bad

TOM DAIGON
edited October 2024 in General
The title says it all. I went through the second hands on tutorial doing the basic initial processes with the provided wizard nebula master lights and got exactly the same wonderful results that Adam did.

.But when I replicated the same exact workflow with my master lights of the soul nebula it looked pretty awful. Here's some detailed information on that data. 

With an 80 mm scope and the D1 dual band filter I recorded 50 subs of five minute exposures the first day. The second day I did the same process with the D2 multi band filter. I used WBPP in PI and got some good results when processing separately the subs from each filter. Then I did a star alignment to make sure they were matched correctly and also cropped the edges which needed it. I then use the DBXtract script to separate the data into HA, S2 and 03 images. Then I went through the process as described in his tutorial. In fact I replicated both his workflow and my workflow several times just to make sure I hadn't screwed it up somehow.

Im at a loss as to why Im getting different results when using the same work flow. FYI, I used Cuiv's workflow  and got great results so I dont think its a case of bad data. The files are huge so sharing them for others to test with Adams work flow for lesson 2 isnt possible.

Ive attached the good reuslt I got from Cuivs workflow to show my data is fine

Comments

  • TOM DAIGON
    Ive solved the above issue so it can be deleted.

    One thing I found out is that I get a much better result when using the LRGB Combination function when combining the Ha, O3 and S2 mono images extracted from my Askar D1 and D2 filters. It mitigates some chroma noise when that option is selected and by having Ha as both Green and luminance I get a more pleasing image.
  • BlockHeadBlockHead
    Tom,

    The real point is that there IS NOT a simple single workflow. The fact you attempted to do the same steps I did on your data is somewhat missing the point. NB processing is not a recipe. No way. Your comment is exactly why I always avoided making these tutorials. I am trying to demonstrate ways to *think* about processing the data. I am showing what happens when you do certain common kinds of processing. Taken together it is my hope that people will find ways to improve their results. I am glad you find a method that seems to get you closer to what you want. I do talk in detail about the benefits of Luminance and I specifically show how incorporating it can help.

    -the Blockhead
  • TOM DAIGON
    edited October 2024
    Thanks for the response but I respectfully disagree.

    I find learning by watching and trying the workflow that others are doing, then choosing those elements that work for me can be a very effective way to learn new processes.

    To use a well worn analogy...I dont need to know how a car works in order to drive it. I have no interest in becoming a mechanic. I just want it to get me where Im going. 

    Luckily I have the patience and tenacity to troubleshoot issue when they arise. At times your level of technical knowledge far exceeds my needs. I think thats why I tend to gravitate to Cuivs tutorials more than yours. I think both approaches are valid. Each to their own.  :)

    BTW, a fellow astrophotographer posted this the morning after I found the late night solution. 


  • TOM DAIGON
    By the way, your perception of my experience with the second video tutorial misses the point. 

    When I initially do the tutorial I use the provided data. To reinforce the learning and out of curiosity I find doing it a second time with my data is a very effective way to internalize my understanding of what's going on. And it's nice to see how my stuff looks instead of yours.

     I would hazard guess that many folks following your tutorials do the same thing. It's an understandable reflex to want to see how these new techniques affect our imaging. It doesn't mean I am trying to religiously utilize your workflow so much as it is away to see how it affects my data. I think that needed clarifying.
  • auroraTDunn
    I ALWAYS follow along with the provided material when available. But I do it taking A LOT more time to experiment with Adam's teaching so I can understand the why as well as the how for choosing which tools and settings. None of my projects are the same as Adams and thus never can be processed, to their best offerings, as Adams.
    To me this is what makes Adam's tutorials the best by far. Its not  simple pipeline follow along but its all about the why things work the way they do and why to use them.

    Note I'm just stating that this is my experience and purpose but supporting that I ALWAYS follow along with provided data as well too. Without those data I sometimes find it harder to learn anywhere near as well as I do when I have data to follow!
  • TOM DAIGON
    edited October 2024
    Deleted.
Sign In or Register to comment.