The Ethics of Imaging - Recent Adelaide Symposium -

[dugnsuz]

Hello all..
Recently Prof Leon Geljon and myself dugnsuz Phd caught up over a few vino collapsos down here in SA to debate the ethics of astro-imaging.

I proposed that in our quest for maximum automation such as autoguiding and computer control etc, a large degree of the creative element has been lost from our great hobby and we are are ultimately chasing the best mathematical histogram instead of the aesthetic!

Prof leon responded with an interesting response - he felt that one day, very soon there will be a commercial product which takes our 20x 30 second exposures and stacks them in-camera then spits out a final optimally processed product. I had to agree with his vision of the future.

But my original question remained - where is the creativity in our quest for the best image? In the technical setup of our scopes or the processing of the data??
leon thought it lay in the setup, tracking etc.
This question is now open to peer review!

I attach a pic of this momentous meeting!!

Doug

ps... great to finally meet up leon;)

[citivolus]

My opinion is that the newer systems are becoming more and more like point and shoot cameras. As with photography in general, the actual image is more than just the data, it is in the composition and exposure. Sure, anyone can take an image, but how many of them are really good. There will always be room for those who take the time, do the planning, and make truly exceptional images.

[[1ponders]]

:scared:

Scarey stuff!!!!


I'll get back to you on the other issue. ;)

[gbeal]

Yep, me too, a pair of Beagle Boys if ever I saw them.
I like the good side of the modern era, but also feel that unless you get dew on you or cold while shooting, then you are missing some of the fun. Each to his own though. It is a hobby, and various methods give various results, as long as the end result is fun, then why not.

[Ric]

The Dodgy brothers for sure.

I think that all the fun of getting out in the elements would be lost. I think we need to have the odd dud image or in my case a lot of dud images, it's what keeps us coming back. If everything was perfect all the time it would get boring very quickly.

Cheers

Cheers

[Glenhuon]

I get as much fun out of the fiddling with the technical bits as getting the image. Don't have any inclination for a goto mount, would rather learn how to set things up using my built-in 'puter. :)
"When a machine does the work of a man, it diminishes the man"

Cheers
Bill

[OneOfOne]

I guess it is just the natural progression of the hobby. From hand drawn sketches, to glass plates, to sensitized film, to CCD, to automatic acquisition and processing. It is all a journey, and each of us has the option of getting of when we are happy with how far it has taken us. The person who gets off at one spot is no less a traveller than the one who takes the ride all the way! At the moment, I have yet to get onto the train :sadeyes:

The question is, what is the next step after you can press a button and an hour later an astronomical masterpiece pops out of the printer!

[mlcolbert]

being there??







michael

[OneOfOne]

I guess there are probably not many imagers here who would not pass up a chance to take a ride on a starship to take a shot of their favourite subject from a close distance...just remember to bring along the lead undies :lol:

[higginsdj]

I take it this view is aimed straight at the 'pretty picture' end of imaging. There is no room for creativity in scientific imaging as the process depends on repetition.

Now looking at astroimaging from a pretty picture perspective, where is the creativity et al in having to sit and manually guide the telescope in cold/damp conditions? I find this sort of argument just as silly as is the view that you are not a 'real' astronomer if you can't star hop to find the most obscure and difficult to find deep sky targets.

One might look at the 'imaging ethics' of a digital artist compared to a traditional artist - Painting with Paint or painting with Photoshop, Sculpting in Bronze or Marble compared to CGI modelling. We have new and different tools.

Creativity is in how we achieved the result not what tools we used.

Cheers

[bojan]

Where are those good old days when we (amateurs) actually build our own equipment and then used it.. with (most of the time) great results ?
Today, anyone who could afford to spit out Mega$ for equipment can get excellent images (and other results, in general).
I think those practices that imitate the professional approach (which MUST be repeatable in order for data to be usefully shared within professional scientific community) are missing the point of being amateur entirely, it is becoming the consumer activity.. Now we only have to establish the market for those pictures somehow (I am sure there are such ideas in some people's heads already) and that will be the end of what used to be ave-inspiring experience...
The creativity is a process.. from the beginning to the end. I do not think it can be bought, partly or the whole....
For me, the greatest moment recently was when I found Vesta on one of my casual shots (far from being a perfect image in any aspect) that I took without being aware it was there...

[mlcolbert]

David Hi,

your comment made me pause, there was something that
I couldn't quite accept:

Creativity is in how we achieved the result not what tools we used.[/QUOTE]

I believe that the creativity is more in the visualisation or recognition of the intrinsic beauty of an object or event which we then attempt to record in whatever way. So that the,....how we achieve / tools, for me comes down to the technology available at the time.

I supose this ties in with Bogan in that, observing (for me) has a greater impact, even though I am more interested in the photographic side. Images may well be our 'holy grail' something to aspire to regardless of the technique or the technology utilised. For each of us the problem is how to transfer that wonderment of the visual to a recorded medium.

some thoughts...



michael

[Dujon]

I tend to side with David H. There is a distinct difference between pure scientific imaging and 'artistic' imaging - though they are not mutually exclusive.

Would you castigate a sculptor who produces a work of art by using the latest and greatest in kilns and furnaces? If the latest in technology makes it easier, more accurate and more informative then why not take advantage of it?

I would alter David's last comment to 'Creativity is the result'.

[bojan] No, I don't agree with your slant on this. Years ago when I was a lad people made their own radios. Some still do. While such endeavour had nothing to do with art it was more a matter of necessity and cost, not unlike grinding your own mirrors and assembling a telescope - though the end result was much different. As already pointed out by yourself, it is a hobby. The latest cheaper products have brought the hobby within the reach of those, such as myself, who do not have the mechanical skills or, often, the time to invest in such a venture. I am convinced that I was born with two left thumbs and eight right fingers. For proof of that you need only give me a piece of timber and ask me to make a cube out of it.

*edit*

Hello, Michael. In the midst of my above composition I had to duck out for a few minutes. No damage done.

[jjjnettie]

Geez, I'm just happy if I capture what I'm aiming at.
That is an achievement in itself.
Take Art for instance. Is there more beauty in a painting that has taken the Artist 6 months to complete, or in a clever sketch that took only 15 minutes to complete. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Among us there are diehards as well as the innovators. But there are a lot of us inbetweeners. Each at different stages of the imaging journey and each working hard in their own way to produce what to them is the perfect image.

[avandonk]

Thanks for the picture of this momentous meeting. Very interesting question.

My basic belief about astrophotography is, no matter what equipment you have you should be striving to push it and yourself to its limits. This entails using all the knowledge, creativity and innovation you can apply to the many problems that can limit the quality or aesthetics of the final image.

I will not get into any argument of 'scientific' versus 'pretty pictures' as it is obvious to me the aims are totally different and almost mutually exclusive.

Scientific implies measurement with known sensitivity for spectral and any other variable or timing of dynamic events.

Even if you have a CCD that gives 'scientific data' by the time images are stacked blended stretched curved clipped etc all original real information is lost.

As for the pretty pictures it really depends on what your aims are. I dont think automated equipment takes away anything as it then lets you concentrate on all the other difficulties that cannot or are not computerised.

My personal aim in astrophotography is to produce widefields showing the best detail possible. By detail I mean the full dynamic range of the original target object at the best possible spatial resolution for the field of view of the image.

We all know what the difficulties are to collect very good data even with the best of equipment.

The next step the processing is only limited by software and the knowledge to use it. There is no 'correct' method!

The enjoyment I get out of astrophotography is learning by doing and so improving. I am constantly asking myself is there a better way.

As for 'automatic astrophotography' a good analogy is the comparison between point and shoot cameras and DSLR cameras. One gives you an OK result the other gives you a very wide latitude for changing the variables to control the final result. What works better is purely in the skill of the operator!


Bert

[Campus Dweller]

I have no doubt from reading these forums that high level imagers are truly enjoying this hobby in the amateur sense. I also have no doubt that visual observers are also enjoying this hobby for all the reasons they always have.
There was a story in the Sydney Morning Herald this week about a business that still services typewriters because there are some people who still like them better than writing on computers. It wouldn't surprise me if there were mathematics enthusiasts who still use slide rules. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use computers.

As far as our hobby goes, the choices are, well, astronomical:whistle:. This website couldn't exist without modern technology; it enables us to communicate our results and thoughts across the world on a minute by minute basis.

So go for it whatever way you like to do Astronomy. There is no ethics to ponder.

[Alchemy]

couldnt agree more..... and its cost me quite a few thousand $ already and im willing to spend more for better images:)

[dugnsuz]

Final words perhaps to Jerry Lodriguss...

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM

Thanks all for an entertaining thread.
Cheers
Doug:thumbsup:

[allan gould]

Nothing beats going to a dark site, putting together all your equipment, starting it all up, going to your object and then start shooting. When it all works as its supposed to its heaven. Just ask 1ponders (Paul) who looks at slightly wiggly lines and knows its not the mount etc but the operator that is at fault if it is not a well framed shot. When it works its real bliss. Other times its a descent into hell as you cant find the object, trip over a cable, bang your head on a counterweight, find the laptop wasnt plugged into the power and it suddenly shuts down in the middle of the first sucessful shot, can't get good focus and your brain descends into meltdown.
If I want a pretty picture I'll go to Hubble archive but if I want sattisfaction I'll shoot my own and try to get the best out of it all by processing. Its all a journey and your sattisfaction is along the way.

[fringe_dweller]

this discussion reminds me of the recent comments from old time taxi drivers, about how it used to be almost a profession, and needed to have 'the knowledge' to navigate around a big city.
Now with modern and cheap GPS in taxi's, the sands have shifted, and that is all redundant, and anyone can hop in and drive a taxi :D is that a good or bad thing?