Quote:
Originally Posted by michaellxv
But the image is manipulated to assign false colour so we can see it at all.
|
Stretching, colour assignment / balancing and enhancing the data to
expose the elements of a subject is called image processing - you're not adding or subtracting real objects from the image (if you do it properly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaellxv
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.
|
Nonsense, that would be a painting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaellxv
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.
|
Almost a valid point
, but you can't do that without altering the subject. You don't know what's hiding behind the stars so using PS filters and the clone tool
changes the subject. I.e., it's not real. The more stars you remove the less real the image is and the more arty it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaellxv
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.
|
Yes, it is personal taste thing, but NO you can't expose what's behind the stars cause you don't know what's there!!
Maybe it's just the scientist in me
, but
knowingly subtracting real elements of the subject (ie whatever is in the field of view) is fudging the data and belongs in the realm of make believe and pure art. The objective of a good image processor is to render the subject as strikingly as possible while keeping it as real as possible.
Cheers, Marcus