Thread: C.a.r.o.s.
View Single Post
  #13  
Old 06-01-2010, 03:10 PM
michaellxv's Avatar
michaellxv (Michael)
Registered User

michaellxv is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B View Post
Yes it is.
If you image at radio frequencies for example, you don't remove part of the image that is being produced at the same frequency with a photoshop technique.
But the image is manipulated to assign false colour so we can see it at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B View Post
I must admit I don't like the photoshopped images with no stars. They look like nice artworks but could as easily be made with a paint brush on canvas and be just as relevant as astro images.
Why not add in areas of red nebulocity to a globular cluster to "enhance" it?
Not really any different to removing bits of image to enhance it.
Given the amount of post processing required to produce any image it could be said that they could all be produced without ever using a telescope of camera.

I think it is quite valid to remove stars which are not part of the subject but are in front of it from our line of sight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B View Post
Each to their own I suppose.
Removing stars from a subject which has them is personal taste, and IMO the absence of stars can allow the image to show structure which is hidden. I would prefer to see both images side by side for comparison.

Last edited by michaellxv; 06-01-2010 at 03:10 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote