|
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!
|