Do you have one orignial .fit file that you captured to attach?

I'm surprised there isn't more data with this settings. I'm wondering if something went wrong in your processing. Must you align in pshop? DSS will align. I love using DSS LIVE during aquisition, it watches for new subs coming in from other software and will stack them live on the fly.

Hi Ron,
I was surprised too...
Here's a google drive link to one of the fits.
drive.google.com/file/d/1TXYB_AQgHrnS0S1...tnl/view?usp=sharing
Thanks!

I struggled with this for quite some time...
Tried different profiles, including sRGB. Followed different instructions...
Still my images look differently between color-matched and not color-matched applications.
I'll give this one more try...

several problems. Spacing is to close. How do you have the camera mounted and what is in the camera train? (shoot me a pic?) The camera sensor is a bit to close.
Focus was off
but It looks like the reason you have so little data is massive light pollution. What are your skies like? Was there a good sized moon? Both of those things will really lighten the background sky which washes out the light you're trying to capture.

The exposure was likely to long and you over exposed for your LP level. I'm in bortle 6 and I can't shoot longer than 45 seconds with my OSC camera. Else the backgroud washes out the target. I bet you'd have gotten better with 80-100 30 second exposures.

The needed no stretching (which is unusual, I've never seen that before). Due to over exposure. And when I debayered the sky looks like dawn or daylight. This is why the galaxies aren't showing up. Over exposing the back sky is just like shooting stars in the daytime. = )

I just a debayered and I see this. The image should be VERY DARK and need stretching at his point. So next time point to the same place and grab a bunch of 30 second exposures. You can try 40 sec or even 60 second. (but make sure that when you see your sub (unstretched) it's dark. What capture software are you using? Most auto stretch. It helps to turn this off to check your exposure. We could get into background adu levels but I'd rather not get into numbers. I hate numbers.
So the original is like daylight. Then asking software to stretch has to push to much to try and reveal the data... and noise is out of control and the sky is still way way to light.

For comparison here is a recent sub and I just debayered it. Not stretched yet.

Stretched - This was one of several test shots for my spacing. (same issue you have). Mine is also to close. I shoot a few tests then I go out and adjust the spacing. Because I'm to close I have oblong stars near the edges and corners that smear outward. This is my little portable 80mm.
But 10 seconds gain 240. (so I could get a lot of stars in a short exposure to see if they're flat or not.

SAME SHOT as the black one above. I just clicked the auto stretch button.
no cooler I wasn't into quality other than if my stars are pin points into the corners. (I'm still adjusting!)

Ron,
Good info - thanks much!
-- I am Bortle 8 if not 9 : /
-- Out of focus? that's probably due to long exposure and far from perfect guiding
-- I am too close? I have ASI294 - 11mm -21mm - 16.5mm - Orion Field Flattener - UVIR or L-Pro filter. Am I?
-- Yes, I agree. 240 sec is way too long. I was experimenting. Leo Triplet I shot at 60 sec and it was better. I should use 60 or 30.
Thanks!

Max, I believe what you can see in the picture is coma which should not be present (to this extent) when using a suited field flattener. Keeping the correct distance between flattener and ccd/cmos is key. The manufacturer of your flattener should provide the correct backfocus for your combination scope/flattener.

Maybe I do have coma but the distance seems to be correct.
Orion specifies 55 mm. I have: ASI294 camera (with 11 mm ring) 17.5 + 21 ring + 16.5 ring = 55 mm
???

The correct distance depends on the scope's focal lenght ratio (Well, I'm confused now, some say it's focal length, others say it's focal ratio). I don't know whether 55mm is correct for your scope. But I do know 55mm can not be best for all scopes.

Do you have any subs taken without the flattener? I'd like to see one of those.