|
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
|