[sac-forum] Re: The Problem with Imaging
- From: Gray Olson <golson17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:23:03 -0700
I wasn't dismissing narrowband imaging as an invalid form, only saying that
it didn't fall into the category "really there" that the original poster
mentioned. I personally like narrowband images a lot.
I disagree we are incapable of capturing the same dynamic range in an image
as the eye can. You can do this by using HDR photography which uses
different exposure lengths and combines them into one image to create high
dynamic range. So, not every picture of orion has to be overblown in order
to see the faint detail as you seem to imply. You can do several different
exposure lengths to capture all the data from the bright core as well as
the faint nebulosity around it.
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014, Steve D. <fester00@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have just a couple thoughts on this subject.
> I believe that astroimagers tend to overprocess in an attempt to
> recreate, not the colors but the dynamic range of the human eye. I can't
> count the number of times I've tried to capture a sunset, for instance,
> only to fail with flying colors. (Pun intended.) The eye can capture the
> image, but a mere photograph is simply incapable of coming close given the
> range of colors, hues and luminance. It's the same at the telescope.
> Astrophotographers seem to make up for the lack of dynamic range by
> massaging the data and hence blowing out the core or losing the fine detail
> in the nebula. No their fault, just overcompensating.
> i disagree with the person that dismissed narrow band images. These are
> extremely useful in the science of imaging and astronomy. With a well
> calibrated image, mapping the specific wavelengths of light captured
> through the filters to colors other than what the brain expects reveals a
> tremendous amount of new information. It's again because of the brain's
> amazing ability to process on the fly the dynamic range of color and
> intensity that makes these images useful.
> I give credit to those that take data and the time to process it, but
> I'm with Ken when he says he skips over them. No offense, but why do I
> need to see yet another overblown image of M42? Art for art's sake
> is...something less imho.
>
> Steve Dodder
> Chairman, SAC Novice Group
> Coordinator, Grand Canyon Star Party, North Rim
> Director, Stone Haven Observatory
> fester00@xxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fester00@xxxxxxxxxxx');>
> http://www.stonehavenobservatory.com
>
> ------------------------------
> From: kengsikes@xxxxxxx<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kengsikes@xxxxxxx');>
>
>
> 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:
