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]

Originally Posted by 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 .

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.

[Celestron]

Originally Posted by babel_fish

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.

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]

Originally Posted by jseivert

+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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Celestron

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.

Originally Posted by Celestron

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/~eng...troimages.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...rs_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.

Originally Posted by Bernoulli

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.

Originally Posted by jseivert

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...rs_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]

Originally Posted by babel_fish

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/ra...toredQ=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/im...m?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]

Originally Posted by jseivert

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

Oh wow Jeff , 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.