|
Peter
mmm, "enhance" to "alter". Very valid point. You could also argue there are 2 other kinds of images, artistic and accurate. Just about all NB pics fall into the former for instance, given colour rendition is abitrary. I find myself sometimes looking at astropics just looking for something different . 3D ness, wow ness, striking colour, whatever, just to seperate it from the norm. The ring artifacts here may well be induced thru processing, but in all honesty, without a comparison, id rather see sharp "dust ring like" detail than accurate blured blotches. I think this M104 gives a better "feel" of how the galaxy looks like generally than a blured accurate rendition. Now, before I get flamed to hell, of course, obviously, Id rather see a razor sharp super accurate Hubble pic, but ive already seen that. Given this was done with something less than Hubble, with short exposure times and a synthetic green channel, I recon it "looks" great. Most over processing just looks wrong and does the image no favours. In this rare case, I think it actually improves its "viewability", without seeming like deliberately cheating.
|