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

"Dave Werner" wrote in message
...
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...)

Naw !!! T U R N U P T H A T V O L U M E ! ! ! !
:-)

A friend of mine invited me and my scope to a block party. I turned up
with my Electronic Eyepiece and TV monitor. She thought people would rather
look through the scope. After I acquired the Moon at pretty high mag (
perhaps
5 arc-seconds FOV ), people were flocking to my monitor, and she admitted
she
was wrong.

So P U M P U P the high tech volume and Rock and Roll !

--- Dave

"bwhiting" wrote in message
...
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.

I agree with that, as I've seen that and experienced the feeling. But I
also
experienced the feeling of someone looking at a monitor of an image I just
got through the scope, and they ooh and aah just as much.

Different strokes for different folks !

--- Dave

Naw !!! T U R N U P T H A T V O L U M E ! ! ! !
:-)

A friend of mine invited me and my scope to a block party. I turned up
with my Electronic Eyepiece and TV monitor. She thought people would rather
look through the scope. After I acquired the Moon at pretty high mag (
perhaps
5 arc-seconds FOV ), people were flocking to my monitor, and she admitted
she
was wrong.

So P U M P U P the high tech volume and Rock and Roll !

--- Dave



You Philistine!

(And up 'til now you seemed like such a nice guy!)

:-)

Dave Werner


P.S. Second hand photons don't count!

"Dave Werner" wrote in message
...


Naw !!! T U R N U P T H A T V O L U M E ! ! ! !
:-)

A friend of mine invited me and my scope to a block party. I turned up
with my Electronic Eyepiece and TV monitor. She thought people would
rather
look through the scope. After I acquired the Moon at pretty high mag
( perhaps
5 arc-seconds FOV ), people were flocking to my monitor, and she
admitted
she was wrong.

So P U M P U P the high tech volume and Rock and Roll !

--- Dave

You Philistine!


Phillistine ? !

I thought that meant someone who is uncultured or backwards thiniking. How
is using electronic equipment uncultured, unless you think there is
something
superior to a look through an eyepiece after standing for twenty minutes (or
more)
in a line, getting only 20 seconds of a look, and then having to only look
with one
eye.

My way, I get twenty people surround me and my monitor, oohing and aahing as
I point out features they can see, without repeating it a gazillion times to
each
person. And if they want to see through the scope, I can always point to
the other
twenty scopes scattered around. Eveyone wins !


(And up 'til now you seemed like such a nice guy!)
:-)

Dave Werner

I am ! What's the problem here ? :-)

At least I'm not a Luddite ! :-)


P.S. Second hand photons don't count!

Baloney ! Poppycock ! Balderdash ! Utter Tripe ! Complete Nonsense !

By that logic, using any scope also doesn't count, since you SHOULD be using
just
the lens that God hath given you . . . and for those who need glasses, take
them off !

So naa - na na naa - naaaa!
:-)

Plus Dave, did your friend know the night sky...M-57, 13, 51
the lovlies? Plus, you say there was a moon at a 'block party'
sounds like too much light pollution to get a descent look
at M-13 anyway...no wonder no one wanted the naked-eye view...
and what size scope....8 inches or less??
Doesn't sound like Spruceknob or Cherry Springs State Park
sky conditions to me.
Food for thought.
Clear Skies,
Tom Whiting




David Nakamoto wrote:
"bwhiting" wrote in message
...

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.


I agree with that, as I've seen that and experienced the feeling. But I
also
experienced the feeling of someone looking at a monitor of an image I just
got through the scope, and they ooh and aah just as much.

Different strokes for different folks !

--- Dave

I was going to try and acquire M13, but the clouds got in the way, and
visual or CCD, clouds are killers.

Plus, I have given the public a look at M13 using CCD equipment, when
it was the only way to do so, and have gotten wows, even competing with
10 inch or larger scopes.

We can argue this back and forth forever, and I don't see the reason for it.
There are some things a CCD can do a lot better than any light bucket I've
seen through, and some things the visual look can. I choose the former
because
I like CCD imaging, and I don't like hauling around a large scope. And some
of the public is on the CCD side, and some on the other. It's just a fact
that
no amount of arguing is going to resolve, because when it comes to a fact,
there
is no argument.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never be afraid of trying something new for the love of it.
Remember... amateurs built the Ark.
Professionals built the Titanic!


----------------------------------------------------------------------

"bwhiting" wrote in message
...
Plus Dave, did your friend know the night sky...M-57, 13, 51
the lovlies? Plus, you say there was a moon at a 'block party'
sounds like too much light pollution to get a descent look
at M-13 anyway...no wonder no one wanted the naked-eye view...
and what size scope....8 inches or less??
Doesn't sound like Spruceknob or Cherry Springs State Park
sky conditions to me.
Food for thought.
Clear Skies,
Tom Whiting




David Nakamoto wrote:
"bwhiting" wrote in message
...

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.


I agree with that, as I've seen that and experienced the feeling. But I
also
experienced the feeling of someone looking at a monitor of an image I
just
got through the scope, and they ooh and aah just as much.

Different strokes for different folks !

--- Dave

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
...
I was going to try and acquire M13, but the clouds got in the way, and
visual or CCD, clouds are killers.

Plus, I have given the public a look at M13 using CCD equipment, when
it was the only way to do so, and have gotten wows, even competing with
10 inch or larger scopes.

We can argue this back and forth forever, and I don't see the reason for
it.
There are some things a CCD can do a lot better than any light bucket I've
seen through, and some things the visual look can. I choose the former
because
I like CCD imaging, and I don't like hauling around a large scope. And
some
of the public is on the CCD side, and some on the other. It's just a fact
that
no amount of arguing is going to resolve, because when it comes to a fact,
there
is no argument.

I agree. Both methods of observing have their merits. I hope to get a CCD
setup for my scope in the near future, and I am sure I will enjoy. At the
same time, there is something about putting your eye to the scope, and
having the photons hit your eye after traveling all that way...I
dunno...It's surreal for me...

BV.

"BenignVanilla" wrote in message
...
"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
...

Plus, I have given the public a look at M13 using CCD equipment, when
it was the only way to do so, and have gotten wows, even competing with
10 inch or larger scopes.

There are some things a CCD can do a lot better than any light bucket
I've
seen through, and some things the visual look can.

I agree. Both methods of observing have their merits. I hope to get a CCD
setup for my scope in the near future, and I am sure I will enjoy. At the
same time, there is something about putting your eye to the scope, and
having the photons hit your eye after traveling all that way...I
dunno...It's surreal for me...

I hate to admit it, especially since Tom and I seem to be having such fun
throwing
this back and forth between us like some humongous medicine ball ( :-) ),
but I
have to admit that , that, that . . .

( cough, cough ! Have to force this one out ! )

The best way to view the Veil or M42 is through as large a scope as you can
get
your hands on, and . . . VISUALLY ( There! I got it out ! :-) ) I have
not seen
a CCD image OR photograph that matched the delicate details I saw in the
Veil
through a 30-inch Newtonian. M42 had very delicate and fine details, AND
pastel
or even more delicate shades of colors of all sorts, through a 60-inch
Cassegrain,
that no image or photo has duplicated, and I'm not about to try myself.
I've not
seen some of the other brighter emission or reflection nebula through such
large
apertures under clear dark skies yet.

So . . . the ball's in your court Tom. :-)

Laters !
--- Dave