[AZ-Observing] Re: The Problem with Imaging
- From: Paul Lind <pulind@xxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 01:52:02 -0400 (EDT)
Regarding visual objects that "knock you off the ladder", I've had a few of
those experiences right in town when showing objects to neighbors. One, who
hadn't seen Saturn before said "Oh come on, you have a picture of Saturn inside
there!". I simply said "just bump the scope a little, you'll see." Also, I
agree that there's a real power of B&W deep sky images. As a teenager I
frequented the Adler Planetarium in Chicago when the walls of the main corridor
were lined with very large backlit B&W transparencies. The horsehead nebula,
the veil, and Comet Moorehouse etc, etc. These had a huge impact on me, an
impact that was probably greater because of the stark Black and White images.
But, being a tinkerer I continue to fiddle with color CCD images.
Paul Lind
----- Original Message -----
From: L Knauth <Knauth@xxxxxxx>
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, SAC Mail List <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, EVAC
<evac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Bill Anderson <malachite@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 23:06:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: The Problem with Imaging
This is a controversial subject that has received a lot of discussion over the
years. You get into some philosophy when you talk about "real" color.
Inasmuch as the human eye is mostly dead to color at low light levels, most of
the emission nebulae would probably never look red to the human eye, even if
you were in a spaceship near one. Surface brightness is surface brightness.
You would also never see the near infrared that I understand makes up a huge
part of the red color in the images. I personally find the intense red color
of many images nowadays somewhat garish and distracting--not just in the big
Milky Way emission nebulae, but also in galaxies where they look like flaming
roses. They can't ever blaze like that to the human eye. Does it represent
real intensity at real wavelengths? Well, yes. Would you ever "see" it that
way? Probably not, although the Orion nebula indeed has a rosy or maroonish
tint to my eyes in the 25". Is a bright red image beautiful or
garish? Depends upon the object and how the beholder is wired. If someone
took a color image of the Grand Canyon unfiltered with respect to IR, and
represented the IR wavelengths as red, it probably wouldn't be a meaningful or
even pretty sight to most people.
So, is the astrophotographer trying to record wavelengths? A human experience?
Or creating art? Whatever, most of these photos are extraordinary, and I
can't salute the photographers enough. I also love the old grayscale images
from the film days--they fired my imagination as a kid and still do.
One thing I can certify: Having spent many nights looking at galaxies through
the 25", it is surprising how faint the spiral arms of galaxies are in relation
to the core region. Spiral arms do not blaze away in relation to the core in
most galaxies; the typical images are very deceptive in that regard. In some
galaxies, a point-like nucleus in the core outshines the whole rest of the
galaxy. That is thrilling and something no image accurately portrays. The
core is always washed out. I feel like I have experienced the vast, empty,
cold, incredibly faint nature of the cosmos in a way that could never be done
in images. Images magnificently bring out the beauty of the the typically
faint arms, but it is not an "accurate" portrayal from a human perspective.
Great science, great art, but not "realistic" in that regard. A few do blaze
away visually, and they simply knock you off the observing ladder. And often
look better than the images! At the AAMM last week, I had
2 moderately-sized face-ons the exact same size in the same 13mm eyepiece
field. One was bright, the other dim. I suspect images would show both
blazing away with interesting bright arms and such. However, the visual
contrast was stunning and illustrated to me how different the intrinsic
brightness of galaxies can be. And, as you go field to field, some are small
and bright, others small and faint. Amazing, but not something you get from
images. But I digress.
Paul Knauth
________________________________________
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on
behalf of KenGSikes [kengsikes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 6:41 PM
To: SAC Mail List; EVAC; AZ Observing List
Cc: Bill Anderson
Subject: [AZ-Observing] The Problem with Imaging
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
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
