[sac-forum] Re: The Problem with Imaging
- From: Gray Olson <golson17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:00:48 -0700
Personally I got into the astronomy hobby through photography first and my
love of science so I am biased. However, I think that everyone's own
opinion is valid on issues like this because its really just what one
person enjoys or doesn't. I mean, if you are just using an RGB photo, you
could even argue that what you see is what is "really there" and that your
eye just can't see it, which would be true, but it just depends on what
your definition of "really there" is. Now, when you start using narrowband
filters and assigning those ranges to different parts of the spectrum than
they were originally, it's not what is "really there" in the sense that
that is not how our eye would see it even if it was sensitive enough.
Apologies for grammar or readability errors I typed this on my phone.
Gray
On Monday, April 7, 2014, KenGSikes <kengsikes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ok, I know I am about to start a firestorm, but I am going to do it any
> way.
>
> Back in the 70's and 80's if one took a picture through a telescope the
> film used was usually Tri-X, Kodachrome, or Ectachrome , or if one had the
> recourses one of the Kodak 103 films. The Kodak films were 103aE, 103aO
> and 103aF.
> Bill Anderson and I were lucky that we had purchased each of the 103
> films in a 100 foot rolls. Bill had the capabilities of re-packaging the
> film in 36 exposursure rolls. We did all kinds of experiments using the
> film.
>
> At this point Bill and Developed what we called the Astro Camera ( See the
> Dec issue of Sky & Telescope 1980 or 1981 for this article) Believe me we
> go way back, self film development ( D 19 , Microdol, Diafine we tried it
> all ( D19 Worked best with the 103 films.)
>
> Now to my point.....In the early days of astrophotography what one got on
> B & W FILM is what was really there. Look at the past issues of S & T and
> you will see what I mean REAL pictures (Bill I hope you will jump in here
> and help me)
>
> I am not belittling CCD photography, but today Astrophotography is
> basically make it look the way you want it to look. Albert takes alot of
> pictures, as do others. Each uses different pallets for color definition
> as the owner sees fit and produces great pictures.
>
> Personally, I do not look at the CCD image as I cannot see that object in
> that color in my telescope and I delete the post. This is not meant to
> demean what others do , but to keep in the realm of reality as I see it.
>
>
>
> Ken Sikes
>
Other related posts:
