Hi Shawn,
I'll be honest here and say that there is NO reason that 'amp-glow' shouldn't be effectively dealt with during a 'proper' calibration stage. There is nothing 'magic' about amp glow - it is just a 'thermal signal' that needs judicious application of correctly acquired Dark frames to try and control it.
I don't know about the mods that may have been carried out to your DSLR (if any), or whether your camera allows for 'Noise Reduction' when used to take long exposures, but the experience that I have had with my totally un-modified Olympus e500 was that I really needed to take a Dark frame IN BETWEEN each Light frame. This was the ONLY way to guarantee that the two frames would be 'thermally matched'.
If you can't get the 'thermal matching' correct, AT the time of capture, then EVERYTHING else that you do thereafter is a 'compromise'.
Even then, assuming that you do have the willpower to execute a Dark-Light-Dark-Light-Dark capture sequence, you still do not benefit from a properly temperature regulated environment - or even the benefit of a non-regulated environment such as provided by the standard Meade DSI cameras, which at least provide a record of the actual CCD temperature of each image, information that can allow temperature matching between lights and darks in the post-processing stage.
So, the best you can get is to 'assume' that a Dark taken immediately before, or after, a Light is going to be as close - thermally - as you are likely to get. What you do NOT benefit from is the ability to take multiple Darks (whose temperature IS known) and to then 'average' these together (eliminating 'noise' from the resulting MasterDark) before application to all the temperature-matching Lights. Typically, the 'best that you can get' is to 'assume' that two Darks taken 'each side' of a corresponding Light should give you the best thermal match to that Light, and you can at least eliminate SOME of the 'uncertainty' by averaging these TWO darks into a 'master dark' - but realise that this 'master dark' will ONLY be applicable to the Light around which the source Darks were taken.
It really is as difficult as this if you want to get 'the best' from a non-cooled DSLR. And, because it IS as difficult as this, most folk just don't bother. They either use the built-in 'Noise Reduction' facility of the camera. This option, in reality, simply takes a second - identical - exposure immediately after the 'light', this time WITHOUT opening the shutter, and simply 'subtracts' the 'dark' from the 'light' right there and then, BEFORE saving the result (in whatever format you have requested) to your storage medium. You don't therefore take ANY 'Darks' or 'Biases' - there is absolutely NO need and, even if you did, you couldn't use these anyway, as you have ALREADY DARK-CALIBRATED your Lights when you acquired them.
You could still take Flats - and the same argument (all of it) applies to these as well. After all, a 'Flat' is just a 'Light' that has used a different light source. So, if you are going to calibrate with a MasterFlat as well (and, ideally, you should) then you will really have to end up acquiring these in a FlatDark - Flat - FlatDark - Flat - FlatDark sequence as well.
And, once again, there is no place in this sequence for capturing Bias images, They just don't apply when you have NO INFORMATION about the thermal state of the CCD during any capture process.
Of course, the corollary to this is that - if you DO know the thermal state of the CCD when capturing - you can apply a 'standard' calibration procedure, and can capture images in a more 'conventional' sequence.
So, if you are not following the capture process that I have tried to dewcribe, then your resulting dataset will perhaps NOT be best suited to eliminating as much 'thermal noise' as possible. This may be the cause of more amp glow, which is then more difficult to process out.
As Simon has stated, DBE does an excellent job - where it can. But it is NOT a 'magic wand' that will eliminate defects integral to the capture method.
As I said, you will always struggle with an un-cooled or un-regulated DSLR, but careful attention to detail at the time of image acquisition, along with detailed knowledge and understanding of the problems that you are going to be up against, can mitigate against these problems. There are PLENTY of excellent images out there that demonstrate that it CAN be done
HTH
Cheers,
(and, once again, if you have not already bought 'the bible', now is the time to be seriously considering getting your hands on a copy of the "Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing", or 'HAIP' as everyone knows it. In that worthy tome, the principles I have so glibly described above are laid out in minute detail, and these should help you no end)
