Respecting the Light : The David Malin Approach

[Andy01]

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 :thumbsup:

[Andy01]

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/105968790@N03/15899760221/sizes/o/

And one from Mike & Trish- https://mikeberthonjones.smugmug.com/Category/Star-Forming-Regions/i-Sbv7Rpv/0/O/Tarantula%20Ha%20OIII%2016hrs%20eac h.jpg

All very diffent approaches to the same target.

[Slawomir]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.




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.



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]

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]

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]

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.





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.







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).




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]

..?..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 :shrug:, kinda like insider trading really, favouratism even, wow :eyepop: may sound harsh but it's a bit of a mockery really, completely unfair :shrug:

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

Mike

[Paul Haese]

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]

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 :shrug: :)

Mike

[Paul Haese]

Personal coaching. LOL. Wow that is stretching it a bit far. :lol: 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]

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.

[astroron]

To put a bit of levity into this discussion,I think they should be called the Picasso's.
The amount and shades of colours given to objects by "astro processors" is mind boggling.
I once saw an article,cant think where,but the title was something like
"Will the real Eta Carinae stand up" ?
The article went on to say that there is no true colour of just about any nebulae in the sky,it is all down to interpenetration.
I think the question was also directed at Jeff J Hester and his image taken with the Hubble Space Telescope of the "Pillars of Creation" in M16.
People use the Hubble pallet to make unbelievable images which are getting to be just about un decipherable.
I note a couple of posters in this thread have mentioned the "Scientific value"
What do they do with this scientific information?
Mike Sidonio's image of NGC 253 did not rely on colour,but the new found galaxy was in fact best seen in the negative.
I really don't enjoy images of nebula anymore as to me they have lost all semblance of what the object means to me,but then that is my choice.
I also note that sometimes the imagers/processors don't even know the name of the object they have taken.
Cheers :thumbsup:

[gregbradley]

An IIS competition sounds like a great idea.

I don't think a panel of judges is a good idea. That's pre internet thinking.

Popular vote of the members with no panel of judges is the internet way. That would be the most meaningful result and no bias or criticism of the result is possible as after all the audience for the images here is the members of the site.

Greg.

[Andy01]

Well this thread has certainly prompted some spirited discussion! Rightly so as we're all very passionate about this hobby.

Personally I think we're very lucky to have someone of David's past professional experience as the judge. I emphasise the word professional as he did AP for a living, for decades, garnering much respect for his abilities.

As amateurs, it's really not for us to express sour grapes or second guess his choices or reasoning. We don't have the same level of professional experience, regardless of how much time or cash we have invested in our equipment. Enter or don't enter, it's our choice - but *****ing about seems unproductive.

As to the matter of narrowband colours etc. That's a seperate issue imo. David's comments about respecting the light were directed at the core of a nebula which he believed needed to be bright, so one could see where the light was coming from in that particular HaRGB image.

The scientific value of amateur images is a valid point as evidenced by Mike Sidonio's recent discovery of a previously unknown galaxy. A wonderful achievement, perhaps similar in some ways to the numerous comets discovered by Lovejoy et al.

However, it's unlikely that much actual 'science' can be read into an amateur Narrowband image, although the use of these filters does make it easier for an amateur to identify regions of S2, O3 & Ha etc. regardless of the colour palatte used. With a few exceptions, these images are primarily taken for the photographers own enjoyment and sharing in communities such as this forum and astronomy clubs, although some have commercialised their efforts as well.

Awards are there to motivate us to improve our skills, and to measure our abilities against others. As many of us work in isolation, awards bring us together in the spirit of friendly competition. I personally have learned a great deal from entering the Malins, the Moran Prize, the NPP and the Aipp Appas etc.

As to the proposed IIS awards, there are many online awards models in existance already. The Loupe and the Epson Pano awards are examples where a panel of experienced judges worldwide assess anonymously entered works, scoring from 50-100/100. Bronze (75-79) Silver (80-89) and Gold awards (90+) are given, as well as an overall highest scoring winner.

Imo though a panel should only be made up of very experienced forum members, whose knowlege and skills are recognised alongside their ability to communicate the value or fault in an image, to help improve the entrant's abilities.

The problem with these online models though is there is no opportunity to debate the merits or shortcomings of an image with one's fellow judges. In the Aipp model, a 'live' panel of 5 judges sit together and individually score an anonymously entered image from 50-100/100. The score is then averaged and announced. However the score can be challenged by a judge if he/she feels it's too low or high and a debate ensues. Following the often lively discussion, the scores are allowed to be re-entered, (the challengers score remains locked in) and the final scores are averaged and announced. It's a marvellous ststem, iniated in Australia which has since been widely copied worldwide.

Finally, I too had a few minutes with David Malin after the CWAS awards, and I asked him why he liked my winning deep space image. He said it was the strong combination of impact and aesthetics that caught his eye. Hope that's useful.

Cheers
Andy

[marc4darkskies]

I disagree Greg.

There are at least 3 judging models.


A popular vote. Problem is that people may have a bias for one photographer over another in spite of the quality of an image - this is practically human nature. Astroimages are typically not that anonymous (at least on the Australian scene) so each photographers style is evident and quite often identifiable, thus a bias can slip in.
A single (though learned) judge. The same bias problem can sneak in plus the winning image is less likely to have broad appeal because the images are judged on the basis of a single aesthetic. Someone can also learn what the judge likes to see and modify their own aesthetic to match, Though I won't call this unfair (because anyone can do it) it's certainly artificial.
A panel of knowledgeable judges with different aesthetics. To make even this fair, a strict and transparent set of judging criteria are also necessary to impart some objectivity into the process. Such criteria would need to be carefully crafted. This way no single person holds a monopoly over what represents a good image. The challenge for the photographer then is to make their images technically and aesthetically good in general, not just good enough to please one persons aesthetic. IMO this is the fairest way to adjudicate images.

On topic, respecting tonal ranges and relativities in an (RGB) image is one aspect of David's aesthetic (and mine as it happens), but there are many different facets to a good astrophotograph. To weight just one, seemingly, above all others as David seems to do, relegates all the other things of equal weight that go into the making of a good image.

Finally, one can try to ascribe David's colour aesthetic to scientific principles but that doesn't make sense to me. Why? Astrophotography, as it's represented in the DMs and most of the postings to the Deep Space section of this forum, is ART that merely resembles reality. It is NOT a science because of all the processing that's heaped on our datasets to be able to see a result and enhance it. Also, very few of us are astrophysicists! Who knows in what proportion colours are present in an object and at what intensity and saturation they are in reality unless you have an absolute frame of reference? Is that frame of reference what the eye perceives, what an 8m mirror can render or something in between? Is it processed or unprocessed? Is it monochrome through one of the myriad different filters we have available? Is it perhaps a composite using combinations of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 filters?

[multiweb]

Always cracked me up how people can get so agro over such trivial things. Got a $70k scope and performance issues? Buy a goat. Get over it. Spent 10s of thousands over a period of time in buying and reselling gear and feel the need for perfection? Buy a bicycle and get out more.

It's a hobby. Meant to be enjoyed. Chilling out under the stars is the ultimate cool thing to do, whether you image and take something home to play with later on, or just want to have a look at it for hours.
Remember the first time you stuck your eye into an eye piece? Many of you seem to have forgotten.

There is enough sh|t going on in the real world to bring it in astro "competitions", who's got the biggest one, who's right and wrong, who wants to be the best, who wants to be first, yadiyadiya...

Relax and enjoy. Here's your new year's resolution right here. Deep breath. You'll live longer. Have a good one. :thumbsup:

[Shiraz]

:rofl: ......

The issue of science value has been raised in the discussion and I think that there is some science value in what we do. It is rarely direct (eg like Mike or Trevor or BOSS), but nonetheless valuable. In trying to understand what we image, we often greatly increase our own knowledge of the underlying physics and then, when we talk to others (formally or otherwise), some of that understanding will get a wider audience. Like any form of education, the impact can be unpredictable and occasionally far reaching - this is an exciting aspect of what we do. Respecting and understanding the light is inherent in increasing our own understanding - nothing to do with competitions of course, but competitions can force us to confront issues that we might otherwise gloss over, so they have a place.

[multiweb]

I disagree. Competitions bring the worst in people. Dealer sponsorships and vested interests, egomania, vain arguments, self credit and self promotion. Cooperation, sharing and learning promote a good environment for noobs and seasoned imagers/observers alike. A competitive attitude in a hobby kills all that for obvious reasons.

[Shiraz]

yep, that is a convincing argument - I was wrong :thumbsup:

[RB]

Only if you upgrade to a bigger camera.

:P

[marc4darkskies]

Ah come on Marc! :lol: No it doesn't. Competitiveness and cooperativeness are not mutually exclusive! ..... As long as I ALWAYS WIN and you keep telling me how great I am!!! Bahahahaha! Quick, cancel the Olympics! :P

Seriously, it does depend on the sportsmanship of the individual and whether they know how to be magnanimous in defeat and gracious in victory - most of us can do that but alas,some of us can't. Just ignore the people who can't. Personally, though I don't always want to compete, win or lose, it does act as an incentive for me to do better.

[alpal]

I disagree -

A competition makes people strive to do their best.

[RickS]

It makes them strive to win... which is not necessarily the same thing. See, for example, the heated discussion about the Astrobin IOTD:
http://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astrobin/generic-discussions/lets-talk-about-improving-the-iotd-selection/

Cheers,
Rick.

[multiweb]

As Rick said to win. Period. Winning doesn't help anybody. Collecting awards or gloating or being "honored" doesn't help the community in the hobby and again I stress the word hobby. Sharing the way you do things to achieve a good result and explaining it when asked directly benefits everybody. Because one day even a noob will come around and find a better easier way to do it that you didn't even think about. And again everyone can replicate it and progress as a group of people sharing similar interests. That's a way cooler attitude than raving on about any award. That's what I call a winner.

[rally]

If competition fosters cooperation and creativity then that is great, but I think it could be argued that a competition where the competitors are pandering to the personal preferences of the sole judge is going to tend toward images that will become narrow in their breadth and less creative.

Since astrophotography is a very long term process - images are developed over months and even years - so this means that general image development might become stinted overall.

Some of the greatest images I have ever seen have come from people who have been creative and imaginative and used new techniques and processes to produce works that show us that astrophotography can be artistic and can be used to portray the same old subjects in 'new light'.
Or in some cases "new dark" !

Afterall it was David Malin himself who pioneered some of the revolutionary darkroom methods for enhancing detail in images in a novel way that pushed the boundaries.
It certainly was not a natural process and it was not necessarily designed to portray the subject in a realistic manner - it was used to bring out the detail.

Good luck to all who enter, but I will find it terribly sad if we see an ideological monotony in processing because the end goal has been just to win rather than push the boundaries.

I am sure we can respect the light while at the same time develop new ways to present old targets.

[TR]

Well, that was interesting watching my original statement morph away from the original text. Observing various recollections shifting based on the last popular posting. Kind of like that Chinese whispers game.

Geezzzz Paul. Where did you get the notion that I was picking on you. I believe that my original text on this topic involving your images were giving you a complement. Stating that you were able to “process” your images to extract features and details that would not be seen otherwise in the original data. Anyway, i just wish people wouldn't read more into a statement than what is written.

Furthermore, I did not mention David Malin in my original text, nor did I mentioned HDR processing. Yes, I did mention suppressing blown highlights which is something we all do (if we are honest). I will not give examples as I do not want to be accused of picking on someone again.

My original text is purely a comment on the hypocritical use of a phrase that is often used to bolster a certain persons bizarre and competitive ego. Perhaps my images are not in the category as others, but I’m happy with the images that I create. I really enjoy sharing them with my wonderful wife, family, and friends. I love getting our under the stars with fellow imagers, looking up, and imaging the wonderful objects above. Watching this topic mutate where following comments made that have nothing to do with the original text shows people are not following the complete thread.

Personally, I like digging into the core of the Galaxy or bright nebula and exposing all those wonderful hidden treasures. That is why I have telescope. It’s for my enjoyment, an instrument that allows the exploration of the cosmos. Spaceships just cost too much and are very slow. Although, it would give some the opportunity to brag about their possessions. Several hours of data from a telescope in no way represents what you would see visually. I manipulate the data I have captured, and present it in a way that I find interesting. It’s art. After all, they are only pretty pictures. Why would I feel compelled to put artificial restrictions on an object’s presentation? Simply present an object that is aesthetically pleasing yourself. It is your work. You’re not working for someone else. Have fun with it.

Terry

[astroron]

I think we have cross threaded here.
Terry, (TR) you are not even mentioned in this thread,not by name anyway.:shrug:
You don't have a post in this thread
Cheers:thumbsup:

[rat156]

As one of the posters that made mention of the scientific value I'll tell you what I do with the information, everybody else will be different. I am a chemist (NOT a pharmacist, a chemist), as such, and with a little bit of further reading I know probably a bit more than the average Joe about the composition of nebulous clouds. The extra scientific information adds to my appreciation of the object being imaged because I understand, at least partly, it's genesis. I can then extrapolate this to us, our solar system and planet. I'm not pretending that I understand the Universe as well as say, Brian Cox or Carl Sagan but every piece of information gathered adds to this understanding. I love looking at the individual emissions of atoms represented as colours in my images. As a scientist I strive for this garnering of information in pretty much everything I do. So to answer your underlying question, I sort of do it out of habit.



I agree completely, when I explain some of the images to my work colleagues, some of whom are also chemists, but pretty much all are scientists, all gain greater understanding from the science behind the images. Net gain of knowledge = good thing. But, to say that an image is of lesser quality (which competitions naturally have to do) merely because it doesn't fit some arbitrary phrase, dismissing any other qualities it may have is, IMHO, a very narrow view.



Unfortunately competitions also bring out the worst in people, we've all seen it, it's ugly. I played local cricket for many years, in the lower grades, mainly because it was fun. I was never very good, but the main reason I retired was that some of the other teams in the competition would actually cheat, openly, just to win (OK I was also old, slow and bits of me kept breaking), the enjoyment was lost. I only hope that those that strive to win the Malins don't lose their enjoyment of AP along the way.

I love AP, it frustrates the hell out of me at times, but I love it. I just wish I had darker skies. I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but many of the people here who struggle with the "respecting the light" concept image from urban or suburban areas (hence many use narrowband imaging), perhaps because there appears to be little respect for light (pollution) in these built up areas it's difficult to visualise the concept? Discuss ... nicely please.

Cheers
Stuart

[codemonkey]

There's natural and then there's right; and who are we to say what is right? You can strive for a more natural look, or strive for something especially psychedelic. I think a couple of others have hit the nail on the head here: do whatever you want, it's just a hobby, try to have fun with it.

[Slawomir]

Interesting discussion that allowed me to ponder and reflect on a few things - thank you!

In a way all people who point a telescope/binos up or just simply look up do show appreciation of light that travelled vast distances, and by such noticing at least a small amount of light is being rescued (unless you have a light bucket!) from falling on the ground unnoticed. And some of those otherwise unnoticed photons get recorded and presented in various ways so others have an opportunity to see what's out there and appreciate Cosmos according to their own capacity and understanding.
And if some people stand out because of the way such space data is processed and presented and thus receive recognition for their work, then good on them and hopefully they will continue inspiring all of us.

May the Force of Gravity be always with you.
S.

[astroron]

Quote)
As one of the posters that made mention of the scientific value I'll tell you what I do with the information, everybody else will be different. I am a chemist (NOT a pharmacist, a chemist), as such, and with a little bit of further reading I know probably a bit more than the average Joe about the composition of nebulous clouds. The extra scientific information adds to my appreciation of the object being imaged because I understand, at least partly, it's genesis. I can then extrapolate this to us, our solar system and planet. I'm not pretending that I understand the Universe as well as say, Brian Cox or Carl Sagan but every piece of information gathered adds to this understanding. I love looking at the individual emissions of atoms represented as colours in my images. As a scientist I strive for this garnering of information in pretty much everything I do. So to answer your underlying question, I sort of do it out of habit.

Thankyou Stuart,that was the sort of thing I wanted to hear.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[alpal]

Hi Marc,
Some people like to enter competitions - I do.
They are not getting paid to produce their images so
I suppose the satisfaction of winning is another kind of reward &
also serves as recognition for the immense amount of work they have done.

If you don't like competitions then don't participate in any way -
don't look at the pictures & don't vote.
This is a free world & people are allowed to do what they want.
Although it may be bad to gloat over winning first prize it's just as
bad to put someone down for entering a competition.
Above all - don't take life so seriously - as you said - it's just a hobby.
I haven't produced many pictures this year -
but I will when I feel like it - whenever that may be -
at least I haven't got a boss telling me that I have to - another advantage of a hobby.

Remember too that many amateurs have now got exceptional equipment &
methods plus the integration time to bring out details that the larger
professional telescopes don't have the time or will to do.
To do so & get say an APOD is quite an achievement - wouldn't you agree?

cheers
Allan

[pdalek]

Very many years ago I knew someone who could talk for hours/days/months/... on what audio gear sounded more natural. One day I asked what live performance he last attended. None any, ever!

Amateur imaging astrobuffs can argue over whose image is a more mauvy shade of pinky-russet ad nauseam. If you look up at M42 under good conditions you may see a very slightly pinky patch. if you were transported right up close what would you see? A very slightly pinky everything. Actually biology will intervene and so a less very slightly pinky everything. A human astrophotographer near M42 would likely compla*in about the bad light pollution ma*king images too red and foggy.

Astrophotography can be used to record scientific data or produce pretty pictures. Realistic pictures, from a human perspective, are boring.

[multiweb]

That's cool. By any mean if you like to compete then do so. I don't stop anyone from competing. Nobody's getting paid. Well, some are... If you think it's an immense amount of work and you need recognition for it then you're in the wrong hobby. I do it to relax and clear my head. Get out of the smoke. Socialize, etc... Different approach.

It's not that I don't like them, I don't like what they create and promote. A culture of egocentric people who'd rather take than give, secrecy about methodology and the on going verbose and self congratulory prose that goes on and on and on, until it degenerates again. The OP posted a simple thread about respecting the light and again it turned really quickly about who won, how they won, was it fair, wtf... who gives one? Never did put someone down for entering a competition. Don't know where you got the idea. There are competitors who are willing to share processing tips. I was very lucky when I started in AP to have Jase around. He used to invariably list all the processing steps when he posted photos. Never said no to answering a direct question. Always gave clear instructions and a lot of people benefited from his tutoring. He won the DM too I believe. But he's the exception.

And I take it as such. Just saying things as they are. That's all.

The technology has certainly improved and the results achieved are chalk and cheese than say 10 years ago. I don't care much about APODs or any other awards TBH. There are a lot of very talented imagers who don't even enter or participate in events. The internet is full of fantastic photos. If I anybody wants reference material it's there for the picking.

What I'm interested in a community is asking questions, sharing tips and tricks, learning new ones. Not reading 100s posts about how I won this or discovered this or whatever with invariably the same bunch of groupies chimming in on and on and on. :)

[ZeroID]

+1 to Marc and his earlier post as well. :thumbsup:

I image (badly) for my own enjoyment and for the challenges it offers to my technical skills and the things it has taught me about photography, the universe, mechanics, people, computers and just stuff !

I've entered a few minor competitions and never won but always enjoyed seeing other entries and interpretations of a subject. I've long ago accepted the fact that I see things differently from other people and what I think is 'right' ain't necessarily correct

The images posted on here and elsewhere and the fun competitions, APOD etc have just encouraged me to keep trying and to see things in a different light

This forum has been one of the best I've been involved with for sharing and encouraging others to grow and learn.

It's all good ... :thumbsup:

[Atmos]

Creating a scientifically colour accurate image is not that difficult. The easiest way to do this is to image with Johnson-Cousins photometric filters and then just use stars such as Vega as a white balance. These days it is easier through, the use of Aladin Sky Atlas where you can put in the coordinates and load up an interactive image with photometric results through various filters for hundreds of stars in a field. This is all for making a scientifically accurate picture.

I personally see it as being scientifically accurate as long as there is nothing added or subtracted. There isn't anything unscientific about doing HDR as a way of being able to see both the highlights and the lowlights. Via the screen stretch I can select whatever part of the image I want, whether the highlights or the low lights, mid tones, whatever. HDR does nothing more than allow all to visually be seen at once. Via a linear stretch I can select part of the range I want to see and study, HDR allows me to see it all at once (although it does destroy photometric results in the process, it is a good visual aid).

As for making one colour correct for us lowly humans, this is far more difficult! The main difficulty is quite simply that one persons red or green or blue is different to the next! I myself have some trouble differentiating between slight shades of green. My eyesight has me failing all colour tests, the ones that are designed to tell you whether you have colour blindness or not, I am not colour blind as such but I don't have subtle variations. So what I personally see as being a perfect colour balance (if I had a perfectly calibrated monitor and not a Macbook Pro!) has a very slim chance of being correct for most people.

I had never even heard of the Malin Awards until a few days ago, must just be a part of being new onto the astrophotography scene. If the awards are named after him I personally don't see any problem with him being the sole judge and picking whatever he likes, that's what you get for having your own awards :D

[rally]

Colin,

HDR is the process of adding and subtracting to the pixels in a very non linear way - so its not scientifically accurate !

The HDR used in some of the award winning images and in some imaging processes is much more complicated than that - its selectively operating on the structures, chroma and intensities alike, again in a completely non linear way, but once you start blending new channels such as Ha into R and L - you must also completely change the underlying colour balance to achieve white balance stars and avoid the typical magenta cast that results - and so you have destroyed the original colour - from a scientific perspective.

Rally

[astronobob]

Think I wasted about 30-40 minutes of my life, But

But,

I did get one laugh from it all, , ,

[RB]

:lol:

Onya Bob !

:thumbsup:

[Kunama]

I too think it would be a sad day if people only processed their images to one person's ideal whether that person be David Malin or someone else. I love to see the variety of personal interpretations of the various objects, there is no right or wrong way.

Personally my APOTY goes to the image of NGC253 that disclosed the existence of NGC253-dw2.

[Camelopardalis]

Wait...all the things we put ourselves through to tease the darn light into our scopes and it still wants respect :help: :P

[MortonH]

I agree. I'm no imager but find it fascinating to see different interpretations of familiar objects. Who wants to see the same standard rendition over and over again???

[alpal]

I find imaging a bit stressful at times.
I would love to have an observatory & not have to set up from scratch every time.
It's not easy when you are working full time &
have to start work early the next morning.
Sometimes I think this hobby is more for retired people.




Not everyone is egocentric.
I do my best to tell people any secret/trick that I find.
I even made sure that Louie's videos were posted on Youtube
which I think are an immense help to get started in Photoshop.
see here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ5b6pFHBGe66vsuSaXb-0A
However I would agree that many people are secretive about
their mirror holders & other such designs.
Yes - I have heard rumors of people using incredible secret software
to process photos but that may be false.





Yes - the Technology is racing ahead but
I'm still waiting for a 90% efficient sensor as large as a KAF8300 & the same price!

Who are these groupies.:)
( Let's not name them. )

cheers
Allan

[LewisM]

I agree 100% with Matt.

I gave up trying to please anyone but myself with AP. I even gave up trying to keep up with the Jones' in terms of gear. I am happy with something portable and optically perfect... my most cherished imaging was with an FSQ-85EDX. Loved that scope more than any other.

I also must thank Louis Pukalis for his VERY helpful videos on processing. Fantastic stuff... I use all his techniques. For the extremelly limited imaging time I ever get his techniques just work. And well.

Egotists and the boastful have their place, but the people who need their egos continually stroked are truly missing out... as they are Not Respecting Their Life.