Mars and the Moon, two images for comparison...

Here are versions of the same digital frame shot last night

The first is more flat...

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1620951

The second has been "juiced" for more visual impact on the web...

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1620987


The question: I tend to think that most astro images on the web are
over-processed... However, I felt compelled to "compete" for visual
impact when I processed this... Do you think that it would be better if
we all turned it down a notch?

I tend to think that we are "over selling" amateur astronomy. (Sort of
a CCD version of the high expectations created by the department store
telescope box images...)

Thanks,

Dave Werner

Dave Werner:
Here are versions of the same digital frame shot last night
The first is more flat...
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1620951

The second has been "juiced" for more visual impact on the web...
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1620987

The question: I tend to think that most astro images on the web are
over-processed... However, I felt compelled to "compete" for visual
impact when I processed this... Do you think that it would be better if
we all turned it down a notch?

I like the image behind curtain #2. Your purpose in making this image
was enjoyment and the production of a pretty picture (and you succeeded
nicely), not spectrography or other scientific research. There is
nothing wrong with that. When I edit portraits, especially of women and
girls, I do not agonize over removal of blemishes and imperfections. If
you want to get specific, it appears to me that the main thing that you
did was increase the contrast of features on the lunar surface.
Professional astronomers and other scientific imagers routinely use
image enhancement, especially contrast enhancement, both through the
use of filters and computer software.

I tend to think that we are "over selling" amateur astronomy. (Sort of
a CCD version of the high expectations created by the department store
telescope box images...)

It's not amateur astronomy that's oversold, but telescopes. Some people
become disillusioned (quite literally) when what they see in their
telescope eyepiece isn't the same as the photographs they have seen.
Many books for beginners warn of this, though, and amateur astronomy
goes on and grows, so what's to worry about?

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:58:40 GMT, Dave Werner wrote:

The question: I tend to think that most astro images on the web are
over-processed... However, I felt compelled to "compete" for visual
impact when I processed this... Do you think that it would be better if
we all turned it down a notch?

I tend to think that we are "over selling" amateur astronomy. (Sort of
a CCD version of the high expectations created by the department store
telescope box images...)

If you're doing scientific research then accuracy and image
calibration would be essential. However, most aren't imaging for that
goal - they are imaging to produce something that is reasonably
accurate and aesthetically pleasing.

What's reasonably accurate though? Well in many cases it's not what
can be seen through the eyepiece. If you CCD a faint galaxy or
nebula, and image process it to a level that you couldn't see visually
how do you know it's accurate?

There are loads of images being captured and processed of similar
objects. It's no surprise that one imager will try and 'compete' with
another to at least get an image that is as good as his base
reference. I this way there's a sort of leap frog effect to try and
do better.

In addition, we have a wonderful resource to allow us to see what the
image could ultimately look like - Hubble.

I don't think that trying to wow others with these images is false.
The images often have a label that states what equipment was used in
their capture. A newbie is perfectly capable of reaching those dizzy
heights with practice and the right conditions. The images on the
side of department store boxes are often false representations - they
show images the purchaser could never see visually with the equipment
they are purchasing.

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

Pierre...for some of us...there will NEVER come a time to
not look into an eyepiece....technology can never replace
someone up on the ladder yelling, "WOW-Unbelieveable!!!"
TW.

Pete Lawrence wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:58:40 GMT, Dave Werner wrote:



In addition, we have a wonderful resource to allow us to see what the
image could ultimately look like - Hubble.

ARRGH! It's funny you should mention that Pete. I guess I’d be really
showing my true curmudgeon “colors” by taking umbrage at the Hubble
team’s decision to colorize the “Pillars of Creation” (probably their
most widely distributed image) in green, rather than the less aesthetic,
though far more accurate red...

Best Regards!

Dave

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:58:43 -0400, Michael McCulloch
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:27:43 +0100, Pete Lawrence
wrote:

In addition, we have a wonderful resource to allow us to see what the
image could ultimately look like - Hubble.

Actually, Hubble images are subjected to lots of enhancements as well
and the subject would not visually appear the same if you were
traveling in the vicinity and looking out the porthole.

Apart from the fact that there is no way I could get up to the Hubble
standard, my current CCD camera is not colour. It's interesting,
after processing results from it, to compare with other amateur images
and/or Hubble (to get really depressed).

A Hubble ultra-high res image shows detail that my CCD images can only
hint at. Still it's nice to have something better to compare against.


--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

bwhiting wrote in
:

Pierre...for some of us...there will NEVER come a time to
not look into an eyepiece....technology can never replace
someone up on the ladder yelling, "WOW-Unbelieveable!!!"

Sure, but the word "ladder" implies an 25" Obsession ;-)

--
Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue - www.datarescue.com
Home of the IDA Pro Disassembler - leader in hostile code analysis
Home of PhotoRescue - risk free data recovery for digital media.

Close.....a 30 inch homebrew...using a few of
obsessions idea's, but better! (lower, lighter).
http://www.ncinter.net/alonmac/ecmog
Punch on pict's of 30 inch Al-Ti scope.
Tom W.





Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
bwhiting wrote in
:


Pierre...for some of us...there will NEVER come a time to
not look into an eyepiece....technology can never replace
someone up on the ladder yelling, "WOW-Unbelieveable!!!"


Sure, but the word "ladder" implies an 25" Obsession ;-)

Oh, and I might add portable, truss, DOB,
unguided, eyeball only.
TW.




Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
bwhiting wrote in
:


Pierre...for some of us...there will NEVER come a time to
not look into an eyepiece....technology can never replace
someone up on the ladder yelling, "WOW-Unbelieveable!!!"


Sure, but the word "ladder" implies an 25" Obsession ;-)

Opps...sorry, I forgot the tildea....or whatever that thingy is!!
http://www.ncinter.net/~alonmac/ecmog
Tom W.



Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
bwhiting wrote in
:


Pierre...for some of us...there will NEVER come a time to
not look into an eyepiece....technology can never replace
someone up on the ladder yelling, "WOW-Unbelieveable!!!"


Sure, but the word "ladder" implies an 25" Obsession ;-)