[sac-forum] Re: M106
- From: Tom Polakis <tpolakis@xxxxxxx>
- To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:06:20 -0400
Stan,
The fight against light pollution should have little to do with how much faint
detail can be pulled out of images. It should have everything to do with the
average Joe or Jill looking up, and not being able to see more than 30 stars in
the sky. It's everybody's fight, not just ours.
And regarding the great images, they would be three magnitudes greater were it
not for light pollution.
Tom
---- Stan Gorodenski <stanlep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All these fantastic images taken in immensely light polluted Valley of
> the Sun says we need not be concerned about electronic road signs and
> other forms of pollution (bring back the mercury vapor dusk to dawn?). I
> wonder what the business community would think if they saw the quality
> of the images. Maybe this is a time for introspection. Are we being
> overly concerned about light pollution? I am all for dark skies and
> bought my NM lot because of its super dark skies. I am just raising this
> issue for discussion because it seems it is something we should be able
> to respond to if it ever becomes an issue in our fight against light
> pollution.
> Stan
>
> On 3/11/2013 10:32 AM, Albert Barr wrote:
> >
> > Here's another attempt at imaging in light pollution :) This is 4
> > hours of luminance and three of RGB on M106 and lots of other fuzzies.
> > The luminance images actually turned out ok. The color had a lot of
> > gradient which was difficult to remove but the detail is nice.
> >
> > Albert
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/49526053@N04/8548549559/in/photostream/
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
