Garnett, this should be required viewing for everyone who is thinking about doing DSLR astrophotography. The histogram is one of the least understood tools to the beginner. You're did a fantastic job explaining it at the fundamental / basic level!
Thank you and that means a lot coming from a guy as technically savvy as yourself. I’ll admit it took me a while to figure out the best way I could convey the message.
I'm fairly new to astronomy but just started learning astrophotography, and regular photography. This explains so much in a simple way, most tutorials just show histograms and don't actually explain how they work. Thank you.
This is superb tutorial. I learnt so much. Maybe you can bring examples to trach us more, different types eg. solar images in white light, Ha fillters, light pollution filters and effect on histogram. Milky way with landscape. Isolated star scapes eg milky way at zenith, constellations without horizon or other artifacts and how to optimise the photo via histogram application to adjust framing and ISO, aperture and exposure duration.
THANK YOU for this. This just made everything make sense to me now. Post processing is for me the hardest part of astrophotography and you have just help me greatly. 🙏🏼🙏🏼
Good video, do not be afraid to narrate your videos, this will bring/hold more viewers, even if you dont speak good english. But i have an issue with statement "stacking does not reduce noise" and then contradicting yourself right away by explaining with "rather increases signal to noise ratio" - that means, it reduces noise and increases signal - so stacking does reduce noise :) Maybe what you thought was, that it doesnt generate new signal/information. But it definitely reduces noise.
That’s arguable. Noise reduction by literal definition that is to say. I should elaborate further but certainly the point is clarity in integration time. I suppose for simplicity’s sake it can be perceived either way. It’s essentially still there you just have a higher ratio of good signal to bad signal. This is always a complicated topic and you’re sharp to see it the way you do. I’m hoping to illustrate it as the ratio of good to bad signal. Too many people think stacking software has a magic “erase noise” feature and that’s simply not what’s happening in an average, median, etc. A good example is the noise reduction tool in Lightroom. It’s attempt at smoothing an image also shows deterioration of image quality especially when pushed too high. It’s very destructive just much less so for well lit shots. Clear skies.
Thank you. I appreciate you. I have unorthodox methods but they seem effective. I’ll be active soon. In the middle of gear acquisition during this shipping delay situation
Thank you for this...I am just starting out, and I am capturing Orion, learning how to adjust is difficult. This explains some of the mistakes I am making.
Great info! I'm learning and was doing multiple exposure lengths and ISO setting as i was experimenting and stacked them all together and the result for 53m is from what other say it's very impressive with a lot of signal and said wish they could do them that good so early in the hobby and I put it down to the variety of data sets as most just do say 5m exposures at low ISO/gain and there is no extra data from other ISO or exposure types they may fill in some gaps. It was a fluke through experimentation but clearly it works and your video just reinforced that for me so thank you! I've shared this to multiple astrophotography pages too cheers.
Thank you so much for the feedback. I only publish things I try myself. I do a lot of testing. Nothing against the community but there is a definite trend going around where people just pass off what they believe to be true. I think the same is true about overcomplicating things. This hobby has way too many pitfalls to be stuck philosophizing over complex formulas. Ultimately it’s passion and the experience. Both of those things are hugely different for each and every one of us. Clear skies.
The video as a whole was great, but the section on stretching, especially on when it's been stretched too far, were extremely helpful. Thank you very much for creating this.
Echoing what Allen Mitchell said, I just learned more in 8 minutes than I have in six months of fumbling around watching other Astrophotographers on TH-cam capture and process their data. I actually had one of my photos open and was looking at the histogram during the video, thinking "but what about this, I haven't seen an example of this...OMG there it is, he just drew it now I know what this means!" Thank you!
Thank you. Your feedback means a lot to me. I have an unorthodox approach but I value information way more than entertainment. I absolutely love this community and I do my best to fill in the gaps where needed. Thank you for watching and taking the time to comment. I’m considering making a video about “over processing”. A bad trend is being set lately. Most astrophotographers obviously weren’t professional photographers before they started. A video about an image that takes thirty adjustment layers to fix is far less useful than a short video about measuring the quality of good data acquisition. Happy new year. Clear skies.
This should be mandatory of all astrophotographers to learn and understand. This is by far the most important and relevant information I learned on astro-processing.
Thank you for watching. My goal was exactly that. Demystify the topic and waste zero time. It’s easy to turn histogram into a 500 page book. I didn’t enjoy reading those either. Clear skies.
Hi, I have a question about the histograms I get. I take photos through my Newton 10/F4 and DSLR Canon 1100D. I am using Maxim DL to acquire the shots - usually 120s subs under a heavy light-polluted sky. Right after acquisition, the histogram of my photos (any photo) looks like it has two "sky peaks" separated by a sharp deep "rift". The value of the histogram in these bins between those two sky peaks is zero. The two separated peaks stay even after calibration, and color conversion. Is this something normal, or do I do something wrong?
Bimodal histograms are common in gloomy conditions. The approach I’d take is to try and center both peaks. There’s a limited amount of mid tones it seems. If I was you I would be VERY interested in seeing what kind of histogram I could produce in better conditions. What is the inverse such as a daytime shot with the same equipment? Likely it’s just representative of your bad skies. Lots of highlight and shadow data with very little mid tones due to a washed out sky. Consider a light pollution suppression filter. Get a cheap one just to see if it corrects the problem. I hope you figure it out. It sounds like an editing nightmare. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary Thank you for your answer. I don't think it's really "bimodal". To illustrate what I mean I made a compilation of histograms from typical uncalibrated frames (light, dark, bias, flat) www.dropbox.com/s/er50b799yxxe2fa/light_dark_bias_flat_histogram.jpg?dl=0 The strange histogram stays even after calibration, color conversion and 2x2 binning. I am using a LP filter - IDAS Nebula Filter LPS-D1- but it makes no difference when it comes to the bizarre look of the histograms.
I come from the days of film photography, and your part on ISO is totally opposite. You always shot with the lowest ISO you could get away with for a particular job. When digital cameras were introduced, I always wondered how they got ISO ratings so astronomically (pun intended) high.
Yeah it seems a bit backwards at first glance. My first film camera was a Yashica Lynx 4. I couldn’t agree more as anyone familiar with ASA would. The key to it is available light. Photons from distant galaxies and nebula are heavily influenced by distance and atmosphere. Additionally you contend with the Bayer Matrix, although good at determining neutral grey, is an enemy of photon collection. If anyone uses what would make sense as a “correct” exposure following conventional ideals they’ll quickly find their histogram piled up on the left. You’ll have a bunch of data that’s unusable. For years one could recommend ISO 800-1600 as a great starting point. That amount of amplification could draw out faint fuzzies. These days sensors are so amazing it’s not uncommon to see Milky Way shots composed of ISO 6400 singles. Occasionally you use conventional thinking. The Moon is a good example. The Great Orion Nebula, although extremely bright, must be shot with varying exposure settings due to its high dynamic range. Objects such as these can catch folks with their pants down that have no understanding of photography basics. I find it amazing that all astrophotography was once done on film. A guider was an actual person, sometimes riding inside a telescope. When I consider my Canon 6D I often shoot around 4000-6400. The noise is mitigated through stacking and calibration frames. Digital media has opened the doors to everyone. It would be interesting to see someone taking film on these days. Happy new year. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary Thanks for the reply. I'm just getting started in astrophotography. In fact I don't even have my telescope and mount yet. So, until it arrives, I'm doing lots of studying and found your video and reply enlightening. Thanks again.
I thought pausing and writing it down would be more effective than interpreting my deep south, clear eyes scientist, monotonous dialog. Sorry for the inconvenience. Lol @ self.
Garnett, this should be required viewing for everyone who is thinking about doing DSLR astrophotography. The histogram is one of the least understood tools to the beginner. You're did a fantastic job explaining it at the fundamental / basic level!
Thank you and that means a lot coming from a guy as technically savvy as yourself. I’ll admit it took me a while to figure out the best way I could convey the message.
this may be the best editing tutorial (for stretching and such). That without editing.
Not just editing, also choosing how to expose, I suppose
Thank you. It took me a long time to decide how to approach it. The irony is drawings in its composure.
This is the most informative video I've seen to-date on this subject - and I've watched a ton... Many thanks for this!
Thank you. I particularly like this one myself because it’s simple and covers a lot of important grounds. Thanks for watching. Clear skies
Thank you very much, this was the best explanation on the topic that I could find so far!
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it. Clear skies.
Honestly one of the most helpful and easy to understand videos on the subject. The voice-free version was a good choice. Thanks for making the video.
Thank you for the kind words and for watching. Clear skies.
Absolutely one of the best videos I have seen to date......
Thank you. Clear skies.
Sometimes we can learn more by watching rather than listening. This was definitely one of those times. Thank you.
I had a hard time with this video verbally. I spent months trying to compress it. A buddy said to use text. Eureka. Glad you enjoyed it. Clear skies.
I'm fairly new to astronomy but just started learning astrophotography, and regular photography. This explains so much in a simple way,
most tutorials just show histograms and don't actually explain how they work. Thank you.
Thanks for watching and good luck on your journey
After watching this, I cannot wait to get outside with my rig and watch the histograms.
Awesome. Thanks for watching and clear skies.
This was really helpful. Thanks a lot from a newbee!
Clear skies
I just learned more in 9mins than ever before. Thanks!
Awesome. Thank you for watching
Very useful info! Can’t help but feel inspired to go at and shoot with this music. The whole thing is a build.
Anything even remotely inspiring is successful. Clear skies
Thank you very much for a clean no nonsensical and practical tutorial!
Thanks for watching. Information is important to me, Sharing it more so. Clear skies.
best and most helpful video I have seen since getting into astrophotography last month. And I have watched everything.
Thank you and I’m glad it was helpful. Comments like yours encourage me. Happy holidays and clear skies.
Extremely useful!! Thanks a ton!! Definitely earns my subscription!!
Thank you. Clear skies.
I have saved this video into my favorites
Thank you. I’m honored. Clear skies friend.
This is superb tutorial. I learnt so much. Maybe you can bring examples to trach us more, different types eg. solar images in white light, Ha fillters, light pollution filters and effect on histogram. Milky way with landscape. Isolated star scapes eg milky way at zenith, constellations without horizon or other artifacts and how to optimise the photo via histogram application to adjust framing and ISO, aperture and exposure duration.
Thank you and I will. I’m glad it was useful. Clear skies.
Beautiful! This has cleared up a ton for me! Thank you!
Thanks for watching. Clear skies.
That video took a lot of work to produce and is extremely helpful. Thank you very much.
Awesome. Thank you! Answered alot of questions for me
Thank you, this is invaluable.
Your comment is. Let’s me know it’s valuable. Thank you for watching. Clear skies.
The amount of effort gone into this video is outstanding. Great job!
Thank you so much. That makes it worth it. Clear skies.
Perfectly timed gong at 4:02! MIND BLOWN
Caught it. :) ty for the comment.
This simple video is gold. Thank you!!!
this remains one of the best vids on the subject
Very informative indeed. Thanks!
Thank you for watching
As an absolute beginner, this was super helpful.
Thanks. I’m glad it was. Good luck on your journey. Clear skies.
Great explanation.
Thank you!
Thank you and good luck on your journey
Astro editing - eye opener! Fantastic video.
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.
Awesome! Thanks Garnett, that’s a superb summary.
Thank you for watching.
THANK YOU for this. This just made everything make sense to me now. Post processing is for me the hardest part of astrophotography and you have just help me greatly. 🙏🏼🙏🏼
Thank you for watching
Well done, by you! Thanks.
Ty for watching
Can anybody tell me what is wrong with those histograms? www.dropbox.com/s/er50b799yxxe2fa/light_dark_bias_flat_histogram.jpg?dl=0
Garnet...This is incredible, I finally understood this subject much better from watching your video. Awesome!
That makes me happy. Thank you for watching
Everyone here just got a bit smarter.
I hope so. If we could insert that into Washington DC we’d have something. ;p
Good video, do not be afraid to narrate your videos, this will bring/hold more viewers, even if you dont speak good english. But i have an issue with statement "stacking does not reduce noise" and then contradicting yourself right away by explaining with "rather increases signal to noise ratio" - that means, it reduces noise and increases signal - so stacking does reduce noise :) Maybe what you thought was, that it doesnt generate new signal/information. But it definitely reduces noise.
That’s arguable. Noise reduction by literal definition that is to say. I should elaborate further but certainly the point is clarity in integration time. I suppose for simplicity’s sake it can be perceived either way. It’s essentially still there you just have a higher ratio of good signal to bad signal. This is always a complicated topic and you’re sharp to see it the way you do. I’m hoping to illustrate it as the ratio of good to bad signal. Too many people think stacking software has a magic “erase noise” feature and that’s simply not what’s happening in an average, median, etc. A good example is the noise reduction tool in Lightroom. It’s attempt at smoothing an image also shows deterioration of image quality especially when pushed too high. It’s very destructive just much less so for well lit shots. Clear skies.
Extremely helpfull! Thanks! Subbed
Thank you for watching. Clear skies.
Thanks, very good
Thank you for watching. Clear skies.
Awesome job, straight to the point and no jabba jaws, just what I was looking for to understand how to properly use the histogram! Subscribed!
Thank you and clear skies
Super great video! Really liked the way of " storytelling". Thanks for the info, I always check your videos. Keep them coming. Clear skies.
Thank you. I appreciate you. I have unorthodox methods but they seem effective. I’ll be active soon. In the middle of gear acquisition during this shipping delay situation
Thank you for this...I am just starting out, and I am capturing Orion, learning how to adjust is difficult. This explains some of the mistakes I am making.
Glad it was helpful. Never give up. The astro community is full of helpful people. Clear skies.
Great info! I'm learning and was doing multiple exposure lengths and ISO setting as i was experimenting and stacked them all together and the result for 53m is from what other say it's very impressive with a lot of signal and said wish they could do them that good so early in the hobby and I put it down to the variety of data sets as most just do say 5m exposures at low ISO/gain and there is no extra data from other ISO or exposure types they may fill in some gaps.
It was a fluke through experimentation but clearly it works and your video just reinforced that for me so thank you!
I've shared this to multiple astrophotography pages too cheers.
Thank you so much for the feedback. I only publish things I try myself. I do a lot of testing. Nothing against the community but there is a definite trend going around where people just pass off what they believe to be true. I think the same is true about overcomplicating things. This hobby has way too many pitfalls to be stuck philosophizing over complex formulas. Ultimately it’s passion and the experience. Both of those things are hugely different for each and every one of us. Clear skies.
Great video. Wow. Fantastic info and easy to understand! Thanks!!!!!
Thank you for watching. It was difficult to make this a short video. Glad it was helpful. Clear skies.
Thank you for watching. It was difficult to make this a short video. Glad it was helpful. Clear skies.
Very helpful, thank you Chris!
Gosh, 9 minutes watching you with pen and paper and NOW I understand! Many thanks.
Thank you for watching. Unorthodox but fast and to the point. Many clear skies.
The video as a whole was great, but the section on stretching, especially on when it's been stretched too far, were extremely helpful. Thank you very much for creating this.
Thank you. Clear skies
THANK-You. Really appreciate you making this video and sharing your knowledge.
Equally I appreciate your time and comment. Thank you for stopping by. Clear skies.
Liked and subscribed, I shall share it to a few astro groups I am in also. Fantastic explanation, definitely helped me get my head around it!
Thank you for the support and compliments. It’s very encouraging. Clear skies.
Echoing what Allen Mitchell said, I just learned more in 8 minutes than I have in six months of fumbling around watching other Astrophotographers on TH-cam capture and process their data. I actually had one of my photos open and was looking at the histogram during the video, thinking "but what about this, I haven't seen an example of this...OMG there it is, he just drew it now I know what this means!" Thank you!
Thank you. Your feedback means a lot to me. I have an unorthodox approach but I value information way more than entertainment. I absolutely love this community and I do my best to fill in the gaps where needed. Thank you for watching and taking the time to comment. I’m considering making a video about “over processing”. A bad trend is being set lately. Most astrophotographers obviously weren’t professional photographers before they started. A video about an image that takes thirty adjustment layers to fix is far less useful than a short video about measuring the quality of good data acquisition. Happy new year. Clear skies.
This video blew my mind.. wow,.. so many new information, but still chewable for dummies like me
Don’t be hard on yourself. There’s a million plus things we all don’t know and learn each day. Thanks for watching
Best I've seen on understanding what stares us in the face during post processing. Well done and thank you.
Thank you and for watching. Clear skies.
This should be mandatory of all astrophotographers to learn and understand. This is by far the most important and relevant information I learned on astro-processing.
Thank you and I agree. I was lucky to be surrounded by old school folks that were in the know. Knowledge should be shared. Clear skies.
Awesome!!!!!!!! thanks for this, it makes things a lot more clearer.
Usually there’s always a more simple way of looking at a complex topic. Thank you for watching. Best of luck. Clear skies.
holy hell that is a lot of information condensed! Thank you for this video, saving it for sure.
Thank you for watching. My goal was exactly that. Demystify the topic and waste zero time. It’s easy to turn histogram into a 500 page book. I didn’t enjoy reading those either. Clear skies.
Great tutorial! Thank you very much.
Thank you for watching. Clear skies
Bongo drums and math. Excellent video!
You didn’t mention paper cut outs. I’m not very inventive. I like bongo drums. They make me think of yoga adventures on couples retreats. ;p
Very well Done Sir!
Incredible information. Thank you!
Thank you for watching
Brilliant, really informative video, thank you
Thank you for watching. Clear skies
Hi, I have a question about the histograms I get. I take photos through my Newton 10/F4 and DSLR Canon 1100D. I am using Maxim DL to acquire the shots - usually 120s subs under a heavy light-polluted sky. Right after acquisition, the histogram of my photos (any photo) looks like it has two "sky peaks" separated by a sharp deep "rift". The value of the histogram in these bins between those two sky peaks is zero. The two separated peaks stay even after calibration, and color conversion. Is this something normal, or do I do something wrong?
Bimodal histograms are common in gloomy conditions. The approach I’d take is to try and center both peaks. There’s a limited amount of mid tones it seems. If I was you I would be VERY interested in seeing what kind of histogram I could produce in better conditions. What is the inverse such as a daytime shot with the same equipment? Likely it’s just representative of your bad skies. Lots of highlight and shadow data with very little mid tones due to a washed out sky. Consider a light pollution suppression filter. Get a cheap one just to see if it corrects the problem. I hope you figure it out. It sounds like an editing nightmare. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary Thank you for your answer. I don't think it's really "bimodal". To illustrate what I mean I made a compilation of histograms from typical uncalibrated frames (light, dark, bias, flat) www.dropbox.com/s/er50b799yxxe2fa/light_dark_bias_flat_histogram.jpg?dl=0 The strange histogram stays even after calibration, color conversion and 2x2 binning. I am using a LP filter - IDAS Nebula Filter LPS-D1- but it makes no difference when it comes to the bizarre look of the histograms.
Great video super comprehensive thank you so much
Thank you for watching and clear skies
I come from the days of film photography, and your part on ISO is totally opposite. You always shot with the lowest ISO you could get away with for a particular job. When digital cameras were introduced, I always wondered how they got ISO ratings so astronomically (pun intended) high.
Yeah it seems a bit backwards at first glance. My first film camera was a Yashica Lynx 4. I couldn’t agree more as anyone familiar with ASA would. The key to it is available light. Photons from distant galaxies and nebula are heavily influenced by distance and atmosphere. Additionally you contend with the Bayer Matrix, although good at determining neutral grey, is an enemy of photon collection. If anyone uses what would make sense as a “correct” exposure following conventional ideals they’ll quickly find their histogram piled up on the left. You’ll have a bunch of data that’s unusable. For years one could recommend ISO 800-1600 as a great starting point. That amount of amplification could draw out faint fuzzies. These days sensors are so amazing it’s not uncommon to see Milky Way shots composed of ISO 6400 singles. Occasionally you use conventional thinking. The Moon is a good example. The Great Orion Nebula, although extremely bright, must be shot with varying exposure settings due to its high dynamic range. Objects such as these can catch folks with their pants down that have no understanding of photography basics. I find it amazing that all astrophotography was once done on film. A guider was an actual person, sometimes riding inside a telescope. When I consider my Canon 6D I often shoot around 4000-6400. The noise is mitigated through stacking and calibration frames. Digital media has opened the doors to everyone. It would be interesting to see someone taking film on these days. Happy new year. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary Thanks for the reply. I'm just getting started in astrophotography. In fact I don't even have my telescope and mount yet. So, until it arrives, I'm doing lots of studying and found your video and reply enlightening. Thanks again.
I learn a lot from your video. Thanks a lot
Thank you for watching. Clear skies
Really very good lesson! Many thanks
Thank you. Happy new year
Wow--fantastic video!
Thank you
Great explanation, thank you.
Thanks for watching. Clear skies.
Great video.
Thank you. Clear skies.
wait a minute! I want more!
What aspects of histogram are you interested in beyond what I discussed?
Excellent work!
Thank you
Thank you!
Thank you!!!!!!
having to read makes my head hurt. videos have sound.. we have that now in movies also..
I thought pausing and writing it down would be more effective than interpreting my deep south, clear eyes scientist, monotonous dialog. Sorry for the inconvenience. Lol @ self.
lol give it a go. might make the girls all hot ... lol .. @@GarnettLeary
i really hate these types of videos.. if i wanna read ill get a book.. thanks