Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
On the subject of "raising the bar" I see things very differently.
Raising the bar invariably involves the greater use of artistic license in image processing. At what point does science turn into art?
I have noticed for objects that are frequently imaged, notably with CCDs, once the bar has been raised, the temptation is to follow up with mega long exposures to increase the processing latitude. Processing is ramped up to produce a sharper image with more saturated colours. The bar is subsequently raised and the cycle continues. David Malin's original AAO images suddenly look like poor imitations as the newer images slip further into the world of artistic design...
A well known US imager has gone as far as to question the ethics of image processing, others claim Photoshop is a scourge.
Now that I have the optics and camera sorted out, my own stance is to go halfway and do the bulk of my imaging on obscure objects where the emphasis is more on raw data quality and less on image processing. The lack of a reference image enables a more restrained form of image processing.
Clear skies
Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small
|
this probably deserves a thread on its own,
as i like pretty pictures im all for the processing but can see what you are getting at as one upmanship to get the "better" image is true, the lines could be very blurry on that one, unless theres a change in general direction it will continue though, hubble shots are worked extensively.
i did a slightly out there thread once on colour and overdid it to see the reaction, most said the natural look was best, but as you suggest is the "Natural" look really natural.
Would be good to see the quote from the astronomer mentioned.
its a plus shooting little known objects you can put your own touch to it whether great or small