Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Indeed Damien Peach posted a video that highlighted how false features can magically appear due sloppy processing.
It highlighted how images can seem to have amazing filigree details, but in fact were nothing more than processing artefacts.
|
I know exactly the video you are talking about and the software involved as I posted a link to it a few months ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
One of the aspects of the CWAS Malin awards I totally respected was DM's vast knowledge of what objects should look like (due their physical make-up) as opposed to some "interpretation" based on a whim at best.
The latter was rarely viewed favourably. I never had a problem with that.
|
Me neither. And I find there is enough natural beauty in what we image without the "lipstick". There is nothing more satisfying than to capture data right at the limit of a well tuned, collimated, balanced rig on a night of good seeing. This is what I strive for and I get a kick out of it when it happens. Because it almost always require very little processing and it looks fantastic.