|
Diffraction spikes, yay or nay?
I've heard a few people express a preference for images without diffraction spikes, and who therefore tend to lean towards refractors and SCT's for imaging tools.
It kind of surprises me because I personally really like them. I think, for want of a better word, it makes the stars look somewhat majestic. Not that I think images *without them look bad at all, just that I don't see diffraction spike as a bad thing.
But I also know that it's a technical aberration caused by spider vanes - it's not how stars really look in real life. The fact that I like them is probably caused by years of looking at David Malin's old photos from the AAT and other similar images. But then, any narrowband image is 'not how stars really look' either, so I guess I'm all about pretty pictures rather than accurate ones - I'm not conducting research here.
So is it just me that actually likes this optical aberration, these monstrous, image-ruining spikes? I'm aware plenty of people image with newts and RC's, but I'm trying to get an understanding of whether there is a general consensus that 'no diffraction spikes is better' or what the split is.
Markus
|