Keep Astronomy Images Original

[Celestron]

In the astronomy world adding objects to an image that isn't there to start with should not be added . Same thing goes with removing objects that may not look right to you from an image that is actually there to start with . Becareful with too much PP cause it can ruin an image . If your not sure how an image should or does actually look then search the web for that particular image and see what is posted . There are a few Pros here that can help or verify your image . Making a fake image can ruin an image . Who knows , you may have a streak in your image that doesn't look right and may turn out to be an asteroid or a space object man-made like a satellite or maybe the SpaceShuttles tool bag they lost and is orbiting space at this very moment . Coments welcome , just stating the fact to keep images as original as possible .

[Bernoulli]

I agree with you completely. I think you have to decide, and then announce, if what you're doing is photography or art. With the former I don't think you should do any more than non-specific PP, things like adjust levels or remove color cast or sharpen. Certainly no one would argue with removing dust specs.

If it's art, then you can do anything such as move stuff around, add other objects recolor portions etc. But I don't think POTN is a forum for art so these types of images would have no place here.

[Jeff]

+2. Aside from reasonable PP, I say leave 'em as close to what you'd see through a scope. There's not really point to displaying a picture of something that's drastically different than real life.

Only caveat is a collage of several images of course.

[babel_fish]

In the astronomy world adding objects to an image that isn't there to start with should not be added . Same thing goes with removing objects that may not look right to you from an image that is actually there to start with . Becareful with too much PP cause it can ruin an image . If your not sure how an image should or does actually look then search the web for that particular image and see what is posted . There are a few Pros here that can help or verify your image . Making a fake image can ruin an image . Who knows , you may have a streak in your image that doesn't look right and may turn out to be an asteroid or a space object man-made like a satellite or maybe the SpaceShuttles tool bag they lost and is orbiting space at this very moment . Coments welcome , just stating the fact to keep images as original as possible .

I disagree completely, and I will not comment further, I should not have even commented at all due to the amount of flame building up in my belly just reading your post. :o

[Celestron]

I disagree completely, and I will not comment further, I should not have even commented at all due to the amount of flame building up in my belly just reading your post. :o

Sorry this makes you upset , however reguardless what i stated is true . Undoubtedly you have not been into astronomy very long or any at all perhaps . Not trying to start anything but i have been in it long enough to learn true images , art images , and fake images . You can email any observatory anywhere in the world and they will tell you what i stated to be a true fact .

Reason is cause they study images which help them discover objects in space and if perhaps you capture an asteroid and you clone it out for example then you've taken away from an image that may have been a new discovery . Then again if you add something to an image that doesn't look right they will call your bluff for proof cause images are taken of the area from several scopes around the world then compared for study to see if they all check out which usually does .

All i'm trying to do is help keep this new section true to it's cause which is astronomy and celestial images and talk . The thing is that if an image is added here that is an art image because something is added or taken away from it then this section should not be the place for it . It should be in an Arts Catagory but i don't think POTN has that type of section .

Now i have seen some real nice art dealing with real astronomy images and they looked great .... for art only . But it takes away from the true factor of the image . Example a particular person i know is an expert editor . He took a full moon and placed it in an image of an excellent star field image . It looked fantastic and it made it look like you were in space looking out a port window of the SpaceShuttle but everyone knows you cannot get an image of a full moon especially with a perfect star back ground because the length of time needed for an excellent star image would be burnt out from the moons brightness which in terms would be ruined because of the moon . Therefore it's art and not true imaging even tho all objects in the image were true object images .

So as i say , not trying to start anything and you don't have to comment if you choose not to but disagreeing and being upset won't get you anywhere on this subject .

[Celestron]

+2. Aside from reasonable PP, I say leave 'em as close to what you'd see through a scope. There's not really point to displaying a picture of something that's drastically different than real life.

Only caveat is a collage of several images of course.

I agree and glad to hear you also agree . Nothings better that a true image . I also agree some PP is a must but that is only to enhance the image and not to add or take away from it .

[Celestron]

I agree with you completely. I think you have to decide, and then announce, if what you're doing is photography or art. With the former I don't think you should do any more than non-specific PP, things like adjust levels or remove color cast or sharpen. Certainly no one would argue with removing dust specs.

If it's art, then you can do anything such as move stuff around, add other objects recolor portions etc. But I don't think POTN is a forum for art so these types of images would have no place here.

Well said and i agree !

[Jamie Holladay]

I would like to remind every one that POTN encourages debate, healthy debate that is. We discourage heated debate (see my siggy). I have tidy this thread up a bit and will leave it open for discussion. However if the debate starts a degrading orbit, we will have to close it, and to me that would be a shame.

[babel_fish]

First and foremost, the title "Keep Astronomy Images Original" is a fallacy. There is no such thing.


The following reply is for everyone who agreed with the original poster. I am not picking on anyone in particular, but merely attempting to enlighten the users by giving them resources and my personal feelings on the subject of them using abject qualifications on highly scientific data of a philosophical nature.



In the astronomy world adding objects to an image that isn't there to start with should not be added . Same thing goes with removing objects that may not look right to you from an image that is actually there to start with.









If your not sure how an image should...(look) ....go ask a pro. There are a few Pros here that can help or verify your image

Comments welcome , just stating the fact to keep images as original as possible .

Sorry this makes you upset , however reguardless what i stated is true.




What i read here is that you are saying, "dont do something because YOU think you should" but do things because others are doing it a certain way. Either way, it doesn't make one way or the other the TRUE way of doing something.





You can email any observatory anywhere in the world and they will tell you what i stated to be a true fact .

Where are the facts you are pointing out? Where is this "truth". You are stating opinions based on the assumptions that all photos of the sky are so important as to warrant scientific criticism and if it is altered in anyway then its fake, should be discarded, and the photography flogged?

The thing is that if an image is added here that is an art image because something is added or taken away from it then this section should not be the place for it .











I don't know how much more LOUDLY I can say this and still have you understand.

EVERY IMAGE EVER CAPTURED OF THE SKY HAS HAD SOMETHING ADDED OR TAKEN AWAY FROM THE RAW DATA , FROM HUBBLE TO YOUR 12 YR OLD NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR SHOOTING THE MOON ON HIS 300k $30 CMOS IMAGER.




"Contrary to what you hear, astronomy images that you see in the newspapers, magazines, and television are not "snapshots". They are constructed out of black and white data files by a person assigning a single colour to each of the selected data files and then by combining these single colour images to form a multicolour image. Even when astronomers use telescopes like the Hubble Space Telescope, the data are often from radiation that our human eyes can't detect (like infrared radiation)."

quoted from, http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~english/astroimages.html


The key word from the above quote is the word, "person". Meaning the RAW data is "interpreted" by a human being using a human eye (and other man made instruments) which ultimately is a rendition of what they "think" is, what you eloquently state as, TRUE OR FACT.

Take MARS for example. When you look at mars visually through a telescope what color do you see? Now take a look at the Hubble and other large scientifically calibrated instruments' rendition of MARS....now tell me which one is the TRUE OF FACT image?

Read this page, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/mars_colors.html

Read this page, http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/COLOR.HTM

Now go back and think about what you wrote and take some time to ponder how you present your case on this board.

Be careful in how you represent Fact vs. Opinions.
Be careful when using broken english grammar and personal homespun logic whilst representing said Facts and Opinions.








I don't think you should do any more than non-specific PP, things like adjust levels or remove color cast or sharpen. Certainly no one would argue with removing dust specs.


Here you are saying that its o.k to use color cast sharpen and ultimately anything non specific in PP. Think about what you are saying. You are willing to "fake" your own picture by removing 'color cast'. Take for instance chromatic aberration in an achromatic telescope (which cant not be completely removed especially if you are stacking multiple subs). That is akin to the "fakery" that you are all so much against.




I say leave 'em as close to what you'd see through a scope. There's not really point to displaying a picture of something that's drastically different than real life.



Again, please read,

Read this page, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/mars_colors.html

Read this page, http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/COLOR.HTM






The lesson here is that while the sky presents itself as a wonderful subject that beckons you to point your telescope or camera to, there is no RIGHT or WRONG way to either photograph or otherwise represent your photography to others. When we start saying things like, TRUE way of doing something or the FACTS of this are...we are stripping away all the Artistic aspects of Astrophotography all together, which ultimately will leave us with drab colorless raw data that will resemble nothing like the images we have grown to enjoy and love from world class instruments around (and above) the world. What sort of world would children live in without the awesome, inspiring photos that we see on APOD and from amateurs around the world.









p.s- I am from an old school science and logic 'type' of academia. I subscribe heavily to both tradition and modern critical theory. I have been in astronomy as a science and as a hobby for many years. If I may have upset anyone by my crassness I apologize for that. I have attempted to convey my discontent with the OP and others' uncritical following of the broken logic represented in this post. I wish the OP the best of luck in his/her learning of this great science and also wish them the best of luck in suppressing what seems to be a most ignoble representation of the english language.

There is an old saying, "if you don't have anything nice to say..." so this will be my final post on this subject.

[Celestron]

so this will be my final post on this subject.


Accepted , better for the kindness !

[Bernoulli]

But I'm not letting it go! This is too good a debate to pass up, although one that's probably been hashed over many times before.

We may all differ less than we think. Let's see.

First of all, there is no such thing as an unprocessed image. It's impossible because you are looking at a representation of the object, not the object itself. The concept doesn't even make sense.

So it really boils down to how much PP is appropriate, not whether or not you PP. This will always be a matter of opinion. For me, as I stated, anything I do to the entire image is fair game, no matter what it is. Other opnions may vary. I've attached four versions of the same image:

UL: straight off the camera
UR: contrast enhanced
LL: color stretched
LR: combination of the previous two

Are these too much PP? The colors and features are all there on the moon, they're just amplified in size and intensity to be more easily seen. The color-stretched version on the lower-left is useful to me, not for art's sake, but because it tells me about the distribution of surface minerals on the moon. I spend a lot of time at work looking at these sorts of images, not for aesthetic pleasure, but for information.

Now, look at this website:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/raw/index.cfm?start=10&storedQ=2052344

Those are raw pictures of a moon of Saturn (Enceladus) taken from the Cassini spacecraft. They look like crap compared to the images that are released to the public like this:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/imagedetails/index.cfm?imageId=3344

The images are extensively PP'ed for the same reason, to make things more easily visible.

So let's not get too hung up on "pure" images. They don't exist!

[Jeff]

Wow. I had no idea this would be such a touchy topic!

[Celestron]

Wow. I had no idea this would be such a touchy topic!

Oh wow Jeff :shock: , i'm so sorry . I was not meaning this for you . I deeply apologize , please accept my apology if you read this . It was meant for someone that totally disagreed with all here .

[troypiggo]

Ron - think you're directing that post at the wrong person. Jeff agreed with you. ;)
And if you also look back through the thread, you'll see that the mods have warned about the direction this thread is taking.

[Bernoulli]

Everyone chill! It really isn't that big a deal.:D

[Celestron]

Ron - think you're directing that post at the wrong person. Jeff agreed with you. ;)
And if you also look back through the thread, you'll see that the mods have warned about the direction this thread is taking.

Troy , thanks for bringing that to my attention ! I totally did not realize that . I've apologized to Jeff . Thanks again !

[Celestron]

Everyone chill! It really isn't that big a deal.:D

Thanks , i will . I need time to chill out myself . And your right it isn't a big deal cause in the first place i was not talking about color imaging at all . All i meant was post original images after your processing is done which most images need PP but if you take a pict of the moon then post your moon shot and not a shot with a cow flying over the moon for example only . Sorry if i made anyone else here upset .

[Bernoulli]

Happy Holidays All!

.

[Adrena1in]

It's an interesting topic, but it's a shame it got a bit out of hand.

I'm of the opinion that images should remain pretty much "as is"...as you would see the object through a scope. So for example, while I think the colourful moon shots are very interesting, and definitely belong on the forums, they're not something I would aim at myself. (I actually often convert my moon shots to black and white, as I feel this enhances the contrast a bit, and the moon pretty much looks black and white to my eye.)

I also don't especially like that moon shot that someone added a lens-flare to, but again that's not to say it shouldn't be posted on the forum.

I do agree there is a distinction between astrophotography and art. Enhancing what the eye can't see is one thing...adding what isn't really there is another. In general though, I don't think anyone would fiddle with their image a lot and then claim it's a real photo, would they?

[Jeff]

Troy , thanks for bringing that to my attention ! I totally did not realize that . I've apologized to Jeff . Thanks again !

Ron - no problem at all. I figured it wasn't aimed at me anyway.

Take care!

[Celestron]

Ron - no problem at all. I figured it wasn't aimed at me anyway.

Take care!

Thanks Jeff !

[Celestron]

It's an interesting topic, but it's a shame it got a bit out of hand.

I'm of the opinion that images should remain pretty much "as is"...as you would see the object through a scope. So for example, while I think the colourful moon shots are very interesting, and definitely belong on the forums, they're not something I would aim at myself. (I actually often convert my moon shots to black and white, as I feel this enhances the contrast a bit, and the moon pretty much looks black and white to my eye.)

I also don't especially like that moon shot that someone added a lens-flare to, but again that's not to say it shouldn't be posted on the forum.

I do agree there is a distinction between astrophotography and art. Enhancing what the eye can't see is one thing...adding what isn't really there is another. In general though, I don't think anyone would fiddle with their image a lot and then claim it's a real photo, would they?

I agree with you also . I've really liked the moon images thats been posted here with the colors and i have tried it on my own but i can't get the colors to come out but on the other hand i like the same as you do about what i see in the scope is what i like to project on an image . I just wish all other images i take would come out as well as my last moon shot . I really like the 3-d look , feels like i'm looking throught my scope :D .

[Jamie Holladay]

[mod hat off]I want to interject here; I understand what you are saying from a purist stance. But isn't photography a form of art? So manipulating a photo is creating art, right? Since I am not an astro photog I can only use the following as an example to my question. Here is a shot from a race in 2006. the first image has only (if that) basic manipulations. while the second has some more work.

327794

327795

If you notice in the second shot the gravel trap is gone. IMO replacing the gravel with grass added to the photo. For one thing it keeps the viewers eye on the subject rather than leading it out of frame.

this may not be a good example but it should illustrate my question.

What is the harm/difference in enhancing an astro shot? Now I do understand that if a shot is going to be used for educational purposes then that is a different matter. but if a shot is going to be hung on the wall? And no offense intended but when I look out my front door I do not see the moon as in the shot posted here.[/mod hat off]

So reasonable explain it to me, please.

[Jeff]

I like what you did in the photo above and I don't think anyone would have a problem with cloning out a satellite that went flying through an otherwise fine image - the astro equivelant. I don't even have a problem with jacking up colors or going with a false color image in order to bring out things that normally you wouldn't notice. e.g. there's a specific point/reason for doing it.

My only point was that if you're going to say "Here's a picture of X" that it be similar to what you would see if you could look at it yourself thought a scope.

I guess this is just my opinion and taste. Everyone enjoys different flavors.

[mod hat off]....[/mod hat off]



Do they REALLY give you guys hats?;)

[Jamie Holladay]

Thanks for your point of view. I was just trying to understand.

Do they REALLY give you guys hats?;)
No, I just did not want you guys to think I was speaking as a mod. I like to learn new things and since I did wear the mod hat in the thread earlier I didn't want my post coming across that way.

[Bernoulli]

It's all good. As long as no fraud is being perpetrated, what's the harm? There's lots of art - and photos - that I don't like but there's nothing "wrong" with them.

The colored moon shots are a little polarizing; people tend to like them or not like them, but it's what I do. Just so you guys know I CAN do grayscale . . .

[Celestron]

I agree with Jeff and Bernoulli . Color enhancing is not an unheard of thing and what you did to your image with the race looks great but if it were going to be published would the publisher accept the cloning ? I would guess he probably would . But if you cloned in a flagman out in the road there he might not . What you have also done is enhanced the saturation which really makes the race POP ! I like that ! It's just in the astro world it is usually a learning tool for newbies wanting to learn and some always make jokes dealing with spacemen and spaceships . If you added those two items it would be art but distracting in a astro image .

[Bernoulli]

Does anyone remember the flap over this image from the '84 Olympics? It seemed pretty innocent, but it started quite a discussion on this topic at the time.

It's the antenna from the aid's walkie-talkie.

.

[Jamie Holladay]

I agree with Jeff and Bernoulli . Color enhancing is not an unheard of thing and what you did to your image with the race looks great but if it were going to be published would the publisher accept the cloning ? I would guess he probably would . But if you cloned in a flagman out in the road there he might not . What you have also done is enhanced the saturation which really makes the race POP ! I like that ! It's just in the astro world it is usually a learning tool for newbies wanting to learn and some always make jokes dealing with spacemen and spaceships . If you added those two items it would be art but distracting in a astro image .
Thanks (BTW the green really is that green at Barber)

I would have to agree with you on the corner worker and the spacemen/ships.
Does anyone remember the flap over this image from the '84 Olympics? It seemed pretty innocent, but it started quite a discussion on this topic at the time.

It's the antenna from the aid's walkie-talkie.

.
I see no problem with that. The antenna is a distration, IMO.

[Jeff]

Interesting. What was the concensus? I say, who cares, it doesn't change the image ... to me anyway.

You know, thinking back, there was a thing about OJ Simpson's mugshot (first trial). Same image was published in 2 major news magazines. One was basically untouched, the other had darkened eyes and made him look pretty sinister. I think when you change the image in that way, to portray something that's not there originally, then its too much.

[Celestron]

Interesting. What was the concensus? I say, who cares, it doesn't change the image ... to me anyway.

You know, thinking back, there was a thing about OJ Simpson's mugshot (first trial). Same image was published in 2 major news magazines. One was basically untouched, the other had darkened eyes and made him look pretty sinister. I think when you change the image in that way, to portray something that's not there originally, then its too much.

I never saw that image but thats a very good point to mention . As far as the antenna i probably would have never noticed that less it was mentioned .

Thing is what seperates astro images from alll other type images is that your taking an image of something out in space that has been the exact same image for as long as we know it . Other words Deep Space Objects rarely ever change and when it does it is usually a scientific discovery by very professional amateur astronomers or very professional astronomers that are not amateurs . But most changes are so small that the regular individual wont know it until it's been studied and announced by the Big Boys . Now planets are always moving and their moons likewise so these do change with time daily and are not subject to the change matter . Asteroids and such items in space always move also so also are not included . But like i said before there are not Space ships out there except man-made .

[BobOh]

:(Enhancing what the eye can't see is one thing...

I have read most of this thread. My take on this is that I am pretty much a purist/realist when it comes to photography, especially astrophotography, and the OP has the best point regarding the value of leaving, for example, a comet trail in a shot. The comet could be coming to kill us:(:(

Having said that, I certainly appreciate the effects, color and otherwise, that come out of stacked and processed images. And with regard to the quote above, the other side of that is enhancing what the camera can't see. An example that comes to mind is a shot I tried to get of the full moon with a ring around it. Obviously I couldn't get both in one exposure. I would have had to expose one shot for the moon and another for the ring and combine in post, something I did not think of, and did not have the skill to do at the time.

So, yeah I believe that, when it comes to post-processing, less is often more, but photography does have its limitations which often must be overcome in post to convey the awesomeness of a subject.

[BobOh]

Does anyone remember the flap over this image from the '84 Olympics? It seemed pretty innocent, but it started quite a discussion on this topic at the time.

It's the antenna from the aid's walkie-talkie.

.

I see no problem with that. The antenna is a distration, IMO.

I remember that shot. The thing that maybe should be asked about it is, "Does the antenna add anything to the shot?" I would have to say it doesn't and cloning it out does not change the idea the photo is meant to convey. But then there is allways that one person out of a thousand who would object on purist grounds.

Back in the old days I think pictures could more reasonably be depended upon to convey reality. Nowadays just about everyone realizes pictures can be very cleverly altered. AFAIK though, they can still be relied on to provide visual proof in legal proceedings, thanks to the data verification kits available to law enforcement. Someone may know more about that than I do and may want to chime in.

[Celestron]

:(

So, yeah I believe that, when it comes to post-processing, less is often more, but photography does have its limitations which often must be overcome in post to convey the awesomeness of a subject.

I agree with all you said and i especially like the way you explained this part . I like most all astro images but when i look in the scopes eye-piece and see it with my own eyes the awsomeness of the object is just jaw-dropping !! Any image that can produce that same look in the 3-D effect catches my attention quickly ! Thats the way i wish to see all astro images but most do have color and color make them beautiful and is an accepted image in astronomy and always has . So color enhancement in an astro image is not something i have a problem with . But take M42 the Orion Neb for example . It's beautiful in color but if i could take a grayscale image (B&W) and make it look like i see it in the eye-piece then i would choose it first but it takes a perfect focus and great image in B&W to do so and those are very hard to come by !!