Respecting the Light : The David Malin Approach

[Andy01 (Andy)]

Here is the concept as introduced by David Malin at the 2015 CWAS Dinner.
Forgive my paraphrasing, but it goes like this.

A photograph of a DSO should show where the light is coming from, and therefore should be brighter in that region. When we use all the available technology to reveal every bit of detail in a DSO core we loose the essence of the object as we need to "Respect the light".

So processing an image that looks HDR and unrealistic is contrary to this concept.

Discuss below

[leon]

Andy I could not agree more, some images are so over processed they actually look fake.
I am a believer of what you take is what you get, you have captured the light on your sensor in my day it was film.

Let me say something about other light.

I am here in Darwin trying to capture the light of lightning strikes, with some success, but also many failures.

The ones i have captured i could stack together and make a fine print, but that print is not really true, I have put lots of light together to make a pretty picture.

I feel one frame one image, and if you happen to capture that one in a hundred strike, fantastic.

I happened to run into one fellow at Nightcliff a suburb of Darwin along the foreshore, and he was a storm chaser from this area and is associated with the Storm Chasers of Darwin.
He was great to talk to and showed me a few tips, and said in his parting words, "don't worry mate keep trying you will get that special strike one day, most you see are 50% real and 50% Photoshop."

Leon

[Andy01 (Andy)]

A few differently treated examples of the Tarantula NGC 2070 to kick off the discussion.

One of mine - http://www.astrobin.com/full/222782/0/

Slawomir's - http://www.astrobin.com/full/233037/F/

Steve Mohr's - https://www.flickr.com/photos/105968...60221/sizes/o/

And one from Mike & Trish- https://mikeberthonjones.smugmug.com...hrs%20each.jpg

All very diffent approaches to the same target.

[Slawomir (Suavi)]

I reckon M&T's interpretation of the Tarantula is the nicest of all four

Mine is probably the least respectful of light LOL, but to its defence, unlike my other images, it actually looks better in full resolution: http://www.astrobin.com/full/233037/F/?real=&mod=

It is very interesting to compare the central part (the spider) in all four images, taken with vastly different equipment and in quite different conditions.

As for respecting light, it takes a set of skills, experience, dedication, passion and most importantly a sense of beauty to create an image that inspires and makes one ponder about the universe. All of us aspiring astrophotographers are at a different stage in our path to perfection, but everyone contributes something personal to an image of the same cosmic object, and that is the most precious and valuable aspect of astrophotography IMHO.

May the Force of Gravity be always with you and keep you grounded.

/S

[Atmos (Colin)]

The problem with the whole Respecting the Light concept is it solely depends on the camera and telescope being used as to what is "respect". I can buy a scientific camera with a read noise of 1.7e- ultimately allowing read noise limited exposures of 45 seconds in narrowband, plus it has 120k well depths.

Now I can either do a single 60min exposure with the KAF8300 with 25k well depths or many shorter exposures and pick up no detail but also not blow out the brighter regions.
OR
With the correct camera I can take 80x60s exposures, be read noise limited and have an enormous dynamic range. It can also take a 60min exposure without blowing out the highlights.

So, what really is Respecting the Light?

[Paul Haese]

I find it most interesting that those who bag David's comments in this regard are yet to win a category and I saw a lot of spite in a couple of comments. I personally dislike being singled out for an attack simply because someone likes to use me as a punching bag because they don't think I deserved to win the competition. because of a personal conflict. As to referring to David as "some bloke" indicates a lot to me. David is well qualified to make his assessments and whilst I have been guilty of wondering what the hell his judging criteria was, in the past I did decide to ask him personally to understand his ideas. I also told him of my frustrations with wondering why he would judge one thing or another. He was very patient and understanding and gave really interesting answers. Many of which made perfect sense once we discussed things. He does keep pretty well abreast of imaging knowledge and does know what he is talking about. He is not just to be fobbed off with insults. I don't necessarily agree with all his ideas but one has to work with what the judge of that competition wants. If you want to win something you must play to the judge. In this regard I just happen agree with his ideas.

As to respecting the light statements by David. Having spent nearly an hour talking privately with David in 2012 I actually know what he is talking about. His comments are about light and shadow and how this should be depicted. It has been a photographic principle ever since people started developing concepts of photography. Ansel Adams photographs are a great illustration of this idea. Things that are in the direct path of the light are well lit and those things that are in the shadows are not well illuminated. David does not mean that the bright areas should be totally over blown and the dark areas without definition and dark. He means that there should be specific degrees of grey scale. Making images show all the detail at the same illumination level is not photography. If people want to do that then do so. I think I like to present images with light and shadow myself.

[gregbradley]

My take on respecting the light is to show the bright areas as bright (not blown out as someone suggested) and the dim areas as dimmer.

I agree with Paul this is a classic photographic concept. HDR images have their followers. Done subtley I don't mind them but I am not a fan of the heavy terrestrial HDR images where lightness is flattened out with no variation.

So its a matter of processing more than anything not the camera or its well depth although that comes into it as a limitation on the total exposure length.

I don't see why its so controversial, it seems a pretty reasonable statement about making an image natural looking which is what David wants.

One measure of successful image processing it to enhance the image in such a way that you can't even tell it was done. That's a standard I strive for at times (narrowband images excepted!).

Greg.

[Andy01 (Andy)]

Thankyou Paul for your knowledgable insights about Dr. Malin.

Having met him this year, I also emphasise the point that bright does not mean "Blown out".
More accurately, detailed highlights that are the brightest parts of an image which convey to the viewer the source and direction of the light.

The opposite approach may confuse the viewer by rendering all detail visible at a similar tonal range, resulting in a highly detailed but overall flat looking image.

Your example of Ansel Adams photography is an excellent comparison, Ansel Adams zone system theory is well worth a look if you havn't seen it before.

Seems that there are two schools of thought when it comes to processing astronomical photographs. The first is to record in RGB what is there as beautifully and accurately as you can like a classic Constable painting, or to take more of a Picasso style approach where you can express some creativity in how the colours are presented in Narrowband.

The latter is still scientifically valid, but to my eye is much more aesthetically pleasing.

There might be 10,000 amateur astronomical photographers around the world and if they are all just capturing what their equipment and location allows, there's not going to be much difference between their shots. (Especially if they're targeting the same objects).

However, using narrowband filters, we're looking at a much more creative world which I personally enjoy because I've always been both technical and creative at the same time.

Like any art form, the Technical Art of Astrophotography is all about one's taste, and opinion!

[rat156]

Hi All,

I have always wondered why my images don't get a look in at the Malin's. So much so that I've given up entering.

I capture and process my images to my liking, clearly David believes that my treatment of many of the subjects disrespects the light. But, I have usually spent many hours capturing that feeble glow from the outer parts of various DSOs, then many more trying to pull it out from the background noise that is ever present when imaging from the city. I'll be buggered if I'm just going to let it fade back into blackness just to please a judge in a competition. If the image is not worthy of winning that's his judgement, but it's my image, my interpretation (they are all interpretations as none of us can actually "see" the image we create).

This is not "sour grapes" as Paul suggested, I congratulate everyone who seems to be able to please David and win a prize. My metrics for satisfaction are different to those that strive for recognition, I do it for the intrinsic enjoyment and underlying science behind each image. To ridicule anyone for striving for conformity, if that's what they want/like is equally ridiculous as ridiculing someone for processing their image the way they like it (which the above statements and even the underlying tone of "respecting the light" do).

So I'll continue to sharpen the hell out of my images, to the extent that people tell me to back it off a bit (then I'll usually agree and back it off a bit), continue to bring out the very faint whisps of outer parts of nebulae that people don't usually image, in essence continue to take and process images the way I like them, which coincidently is a lot like Andrew, with a mix of scientific value and esoteric pleasantness, but with probably a bit more emphasis on the science.

I'll also probably not bother entering the DM awards as the main judge and I have different opinions of what makes a good image. Will I become bitter and twisted by this? No, I'm already bitter and twisted, but that's just part of getting old. Do I gain enjoyment out of obtaining the data and portraying as I see fit, you betcha, and many others do as well.

Cheers
Stuart

[uwahl (Ulrich)]

I am just getting started in ccd astrophotography but it seems to me that there are two main reasons to image an object. One is to produce an image that captures the beauty inherent in so many of the objects in space and the other is to capture light from which you wish to obtain some scientific data. Both are valid.

In the second case the appearance of the image is a secondary consideration.

Competitions ought to make it clear what roles scientific rigor and aesthetic appearance play in judging images.

Ulrich

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by rat156

...I have always wondered why my images don't get a look in at the Malin's. So much so that I've given up entering.

Please don't give up on entering Stuart. Diversity of processing techniques really enhances the competition. You don't have to lose all the faint data into the blackness of the background. Areas that are really well illuminated are in fact that way but all areas beyond that gradually lose illumination. That means you can still have faint detail showing.

Originally Posted by rat156

.......none of us can actually "see" the image we create).

Generally true, but a very large scope shows colour and bright detail. Though I take your meaning well. Who actually knows what these things really look like. A bit of artistic license is what is involved here and I don't think David will reject that.

Originally Posted by rat156

This is not "sour grapes" as Paul suggested, I congratulate everyone who seems to be able to please David and win a prize.

That never crossed my mind Stuart. You have a legitimate comment. I was in the same boat as I could not work out what he was thinking or what made his criteria. After some consideration my rational was to tell David I wanted to win the competition and then ask him how I go about doing that. His answers completely changed my outlook on my approach to processing. Whilst I still don't agree entirely with some of his choices, I now understand his reasoning. I have adopted some of his thinking and it has worked for my images in my opinion. I generally like the images I produce now and my talk with David only enhanced my being able to produce these images.

Originally Posted by rat156

My metrics for satisfaction are different to those that strive for recognition, I do it for the intrinsic enjoyment and underlying science behind each image. To ridicule anyone for striving for conformity, if that's what they want/like is equally ridiculous as ridiculing someone for processing their image the way they like it (which the above statements and even the underlying tone of "respecting the light" do).

Agree about whatever drives you produce images. Your reason is your reason. I think if you put an image up on this site though, you are agreeing to the idea for people to give you an opinion about your image in your thread (not in someone else's). If they agree or disagree with the image itself, that is fair and reasonable. I don't personally see comments about respecting the light as being ridicule.

[Rob_K]

I'd like to add another dimension of 'respecting the light', for discussion. Light intensity is one issue, colour is another (particularly when imaging with narrow-band filters).

Nebulae, for instance, emit light in narrow bands. The Tarantula Nebula emits most strongly at the OIII (501nm) band, followed by a much weaker Ha (656nm), then progressively weaker emissions at Hb (486nm) and Hy (434nm). The Orion Nebula emits most strongly overall in Ha but the inner part also emits strongly in OIII (less strength further out). Weaker emissions are Hb, HeI (585nm) and Hy in that order. These are generalisations of course.

If you're imaging with narrowband filters how do you respect all the (visible) light coming from a nebula? Is it 'respectful' to hit the Tarantula Nebula hard with an Ha narrow-band filter? Or just with an OIII filter for that matter? How do you approach such imaging?

Cheers -

[PRejto (Peter)]

I don't want my comments to in any way sound like a criticism of David. In fact, I quite agree with the general ideas of his as best I understand them. However, in reading through these comments I am struck by the "idea" that the Australian astrophotography scene is rather dominated by his stature (which is certainly well deserved) and philosophy. Coming from a lifetime in the classical music profession I can possibly offer a perspective gained from having been a competitor (up to age 30) and then a judge at an international level. Firstly, it would be quite unheard of to have a single judge at any competition of import, let alone having the same judge year after year. For a budding muscian - and let me assure you that there is tremendous variety in musical taste and skill; as much or more so than in astrophotography - having one's musical life and possible consequent success in the profession "dictated" to by a single judge would be unthinkable and terrible for the profession. Again, I want to say this is not really about David, a person I have very much enjoyed meeting and whose views I respect greatly. It really is about finding different ways to recognize work presented in diverse ways right here in Australia.

Peter

[rat156]

Originally Posted by PRejto

I don't want my comments to in any way sound like a criticism of David. In fact, I quite agree with the general ideas of his as best I understand them. However, in reading through these comments I am struck by the "idea" that the Australian astrophotography scene is rather dominated by his stature (which is certainly well deserved) and philosophy. Coming from a lifetime in the classical music profession I can possibly offer a perspective gained from having been a competitor (up to age 30) and then a judge at an international level. Firstly, it would be quite unheard of to have a single judge at any competition of import, let alone having the same judge year after year. For a budding muscian - and let me assure you that there is tremendous variety in musical taste and skill; as much or more so than in astrophotography - having one's musical life and possible consequent success in the profession "dictated" to by a single judge would be unthinkable and terrible for the profession. Again, I want to say this is not really about David, a person I have very much enjoyed meeting and whose views I respect greatly. It really is about finding different ways to recognize work presented in diverse ways right here in Australia.

Peter

Agree entirely, but then they wouldn't be the Malin awards would they? No other awards are as keenly contested and sought after in the Aus Ap scene. Internationally of course there's APODs, but again, same people pick them, and if you don't take the right type of images... (it's a bit more complicated than that though).

I'm very proud of the fact that one of my images was chosen last year by The ASV judges as the best image for 2014. This is judged by people who's images I've admired for ages (like DMs) but are far more current. Probably not as prestigious, but pleasing nevertheless.

Anyway, weather permitting I'll be publishing an M42 image which David would hate, but it's my interpretation of the object. Just gotta get the colour of the nebula "right".

Cheers
Stuart

[rat156]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Please don't give up on entering Stuart. Diversity of processing techniques really enhances the competition. You don't have to lose all the faint data into the blackness of the background. Areas that are really well illuminated are in fact that way but all areas beyond that gradually lose illumination. That means you can still have faint detail showing.

It only enhances the competition if there is some value attributed to images that according to the judge don't respect the light. I don't see that happening so it's a waste of time, effort and money to enter only to be disappointed yet again by not getting a mention.

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Generally true, but a very large scope shows colour and bright detail. Though I take your meaning well. Who actually knows what these things really look like. A bit of artistic license is what is involved here and I don't think David will reject that.

I don't think any of us have that big a scope! Even then the faint objects we normally image you would still struggle to get any colour out.

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

That never crossed my mind Stuart. You have a legitimate comment. I was in the same boat as I could not work out what he was thinking or what made his criteria. After some consideration my rational was to tell David I wanted to win the competition and then ask him how I go about doing that. His answers completely changed my outlook on my approach to processing. Whilst I still don't agree entirely with some of his choices, I now understand his reasoning. I have adopted some of his thinking and it has worked for my images in my opinion. I generally like the images I produce now and my talk with David only enhanced my being able to produce these images.

See that's where you and I differ, I just do what I like and if DM doesn't like it I just won't enter the competition, really it's the competition that loses out, not to mention the "art" (echoes of Peter's comments).

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Agree about whatever drives you produce images. Your reason is your reason. I think if you put an image up on this site though, you are agreeing to the idea for people to give you an opinion about your image in your thread (not in someone else's). If they agree or disagree with the image itself, that is fair and reasonable. I don't personally see comments about respecting the light as being ridicule.

Agree completely about when it's published it's open for comment, love them all, don't always agree with them, but pretty much always try out what people are suggesting. Quite often the image has gone through several iterations already.

Cheers
Stuart

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

After some consideration my rational was to tell David I wanted to win the competition and then ask him how I go about doing that.

..?..wha tha?? seriously?? Don't want to be rude at all but wow, think of all those other contestants who haven't had the chance to talk with David in a similarly intimate environment (several times even, if I am not mistaken?), gee, they must be feeling a bit peed off now , kinda like insider trading really, favouratism even, wow may sound harsh but it's a bit of a mockery really, completely unfair

Ah, sigh... funny game this, love it

Mike

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

..?..wha tha?? seriously?? Don't want to be rude at all but wow, think of all those other contestants who haven't had the chance to talk with David in a similarly intimate environment (several times even, if I am not mistaken?), gee, they must be feeling a bit peed off now , kinda like insider trading really, favouratism even, wow may sound harsh but it's a bit of a mockery really, completely unfair

Ah, sigh... funny game this, love it

Mike

Really Mike is that what you got out of my post. Insider trading. David is open to anyone asking him about what he likes in an image. From what I have seen anyone can approach him for the insider trading as you put it. It is not a secret. I doubt David would consider me a favourite, but I have taken the opportunities to converse with him on a few occasions when he has spoken at ASSA and at the Malins. I think you completely miss read my post as you so often like to put it yourself of others. My post was to direct people to approach David and see what his statement about respecting the light really is all about and not make assumptions.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I think you completely miss read my post

I'm sorry... so how exactly should one read the following?

my rational was to tell David I wanted to win the competition and then ask him how I go about doing that. His answers completely changed my outlook on my approach to processing

when you then go on and win the competition..?

Aaaaand.. how many people do you think have been in a position to get such intimate personal coaching form the (one and only) judge of the competition?

Just interested, that's all

Mike

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

I'm sorry... so how exactly should one read the following?



when you then go on and win the competition..?

Aaaaand.. how many people do you think have been in a position to get such intimate personal coaching form the (one and only) judge of the competition?

Just interested, that's all

Mike

Personal coaching. LOL. Wow that is stretching it a bit far. Come on really Mike?

How many people have listened to David say what he likes and dislikes in an image over the years at CWAS dinners? Many of which I have never attended because we live so damn far away from Parkes, not like some who live just down the road as it were. Those people who have gone regularly have had the advantage of listening to many of David's ideas, I guess one or two of them listened, who knows? They might have won too. I was doing research on what he was looking for in images presented to him and why he thought that. It's not a secret. He even gives hints at speaking engagements or even at AAIC2013. Those that were there remember his opinions on saturation.

This year alone I saw him tell people at a talk he gave at the ASSA general meeting on the "Colour of the Night Sky" that he does not like the colour magenta in galaxies. He was fairly adamant about the colour of stars. He even gave image examples.

From what I hear he made statements of the centaurus A images at this years CWAS David Malin Awards dinner. I am sure people asked him some more questions after the awards too. So did they get some "personal coaching" too? Should you interrogate those people too about any personal advantage you perceived or try to imply exists?

Just remember this, the competition is totally blind. David does not know who has produced the images he sees, he just picks the images he likes and does not pick the ones he does not like. Bottom line he liked my M42 image the year I won, he picked it out because it stood out to him.

[RobF (Rob)]

Originally Posted by PRejto

I don't want my comments to in any way sound like a criticism of David. In fact, I quite agree with the general ideas of his as best I understand them. However, in reading through these comments I am struck by the "idea" that the Australian astrophotography scene is rather dominated by his stature (which is certainly well deserved) and philosophy. Coming from a lifetime in the classical music profession I can possibly offer a perspective gained from having been a competitor (up to age 30) and then a judge at an international level. Firstly, it would be quite unheard of to have a single judge at any competition of import, let alone having the same judge year after year. For a budding muscian - and let me assure you that there is tremendous variety in musical taste and skill; as much or more so than in astrophotography - having one's musical life and possible consequent success in the profession "dictated" to by a single judge would be unthinkable and terrible for the profession. Again, I want to say this is not really about David, a person I have very much enjoyed meeting and whose views I respect greatly. It really is about finding different ways to recognize work presented in diverse ways right here in Australia.

Peter

Well said Peter. I was fortunate enough to watch and listen to David Malin present at the inaugural 2013 AAIC and have the utmost respect for what he has achieved professionally and how well he communicated and shared his ideas on astrophotography. I do wonder however, as this obsession (hobby?) of ours matures if there is a need for something like the Greenwich astrophotographer of the year awards in Australia. There really should be a panel of judges. After all, we need apprentices in training with David if nothing else

Hmmm. Perhaps the largest amateur astronomy forum in Australia should host this, rather than us all having to drive to "The Dish" every year?

I'm not seriously suggesting an end to "The Malins". Just some serious competition.