Film M31 for the Cynical

wrote in message
ups.com...
So-so even for film. You should have tweaked it (as Pete has shown), at
least a bit.

Andrea T.


Again, subject to preference, i like to take a picutre first time and if its
not upto standard take another learning from the experiences of the first!
We all spend enough time in front of computers already dont we???

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:29:05 +0100, "Robert Geake"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
So-so even for film. You should have tweaked it (as Pete has shown), at
least a bit.

Andrea T.


Again, subject to preference, i like to take a picutre first time and if its
not upto standard take another learning from the experiences of the first!
We all spend enough time in front of computers already dont we???

Strange comment but if that's your opinion ;-)

Computers and digital processing techniques are simply tools - a means
to an end. There's nothing false about the methodology either.

Compare a single image of a planet with a the result of a stacked
process of hundreds of frames - which is the more accurate rendition
of the planet would you say?

Your M31 was a nice image but a little lack-lustre (for my tastes of
course). There's information in the scan that hints at additional
detail - why hide it? The detail is real. A bit of subtle tweaking
(similar to what you would do in a dark room if printing your own
photos) can change an ok image into something that gives the viewer a
real kick. Isn't this what art is all about - generating an emotional
response in the receiver?

Of course, you could be trying to be scientific with your image in
which case , personally, I think you've lost ;-)

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:29:05 +0100, "Robert Geake"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
So-so even for film. You should have tweaked it (as Pete has shown), at
least a bit.

Andrea T.


Again, subject to preference, i like to take a picutre first time and if
its
not upto standard take another learning from the experiences of the
first!
We all spend enough time in front of computers already dont we???

Strange comment but if that's your opinion ;-)

Computers and digital processing techniques are simply tools - a means
to an end. There's nothing false about the methodology either.

Compare a single image of a planet with a the result of a stacked
process of hundreds of frames - which is the more accurate rendition
of the planet would you say?

Your M31 was a nice image but a little lack-lustre (for my tastes of
course). There's information in the scan that hints at additional
detail - why hide it? The detail is real. A bit of subtle tweaking
(similar to what you would do in a dark room if printing your own
photos) can change an ok image into something that gives the viewer a
real kick. Isn't this what art is all about - generating an emotional
response in the receiver?

Of course, you could be trying to be scientific with your image in
which case , personally, I think you've lost ;-)

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

Basicly, i spend 8 hours each day programming(when not posting of course),
then maybe 2 or 3 of an evening doing some more programming privately... I
really cant be done with spending anymore time sitting at a computer. If i
take a picture and it does not have quite enough detail, next time i will
leave the shutter open for much longer and increase Fstop. If my film start
to reach reciprocity failure(scuse speeling) i'll try another film!

Agricultural i think is the term

Im sure when i get round to(or some one else gets round to) buying me a nice
350D i will most likely start to do as you dslr guys do but for the time
being i really would rather use film and stay away from the PC

R

Robert Geake wrote:



This image is unaltered in anyway aside from scanning and cropping. NO
filters or mathematical algowhatsnames applied.... Mount(first generation
eq6) was aligned via polar scope then guide star-polaris iterations upto
250X. Site is about 10 feet away from the Sheppy Faversham creek(Harty Ferry
View for those in the know).

http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/M31-30MX-F4-200mm.jpg


I'm very impressed. I tried film photography, and gave up after the
first roll was developed. Digital photography is much easier.

One thing that has become clear during this discussion, is that
different people have different ideas about how an astrophoto should look.

Chris seems to like a pitch black background, and even removed the stars
from an image. My personal preference, is to reveal as much detail as
possible.

I'd like to thank both you and Chris for your efforts - I've learned a
lot from both of you.


Donal
--

"Robert Geake" wrote in message
...
Chaps!

This image is unaltered in anyway aside from scanning and cropping. NO
filters or mathematical algowhatsnames applied.... Mount(first generation
eq6) was aligned via polar scope then guide star-polaris iterations upto
250X. Site is about 10 feet away from the Sheppy Faversham creek(Harty
Ferry View for those in the know).

http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/M31-30MX-F4-200mm.jpg

Nice shot. I'm sure that this must be more challenging than digital imaging.
Thanks for sharing.

Regards


Chris