Setting The Standards

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

I just copied the quote off a fridge magnet.
Thought it suited me down to the ground.

You too!!!!

LT Ulrich - the plot thickens...

[avandonk]

There was a lady scientist who was rubbished in the thirties by many men scientists and she finally got the Nobel Prize when she was 84! She predicted jumping genes etc from careful analysis of the colour of corn kernels.

And there is also whats her name that really had the structure of DNA in her xray diffraction images that Watson and Crick stole without her knowledge!

As I am a man I cannot and will not say who these very bright women were.

If I am tortured I might remember!

Bert

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

There was a lady scientist who was rubbished in the thirties by many men scientists and she finally got the Nobel Prize when she was 84! She predicted jumping genes etc from careful analysis of the colour of corn kernels.

And there is also whats her name that really had the structure of DNA in her xray diffraction images that Watson and Crick stole without her knowledge!

As I am a man I cannot and will not say who these very bright women were.

If I am tortured I might remember!

Bert

This has taken a dangerous turn!
I reckon were heading towards the rapids Bert!!??

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

Still OT but of the three qualified engineers I have most respect for from my time at work two were female. Easy to talk to, not afraid to come and ask us "spanner hands" our point of view, and pretty smart with it.

Bill

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

...back in calmer waters!
Thanks Bill

Doug

[leon]

Well, this thread has certainly been inspiring, thank you all for your, valued comments

leon

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

Back to the topic. Can't say I've had any feedback on the few images I've posted that wasn't constructive. Compared to some other posts they are a bit poor, but hey, you have to walk before you can run and I'm enjoying the stroll so far

Bill

[Kokatha man]

Struth, go away for a couple of hours (not really, actually banging away at the keyboard for my supper) and came back to see what posts have transpired in the interim: struth again!: and to think I just ticked Suzy_A off in the beginners section for suggesting Alphamone spend $150 on a solar filter for his new scope!!!!!

dis iz worryin me, I'm onlies a decrepit ol' fella, Darryl.

[avandonk]

I could not help making comparisons as this is what the thread was about!

Bert

[Kokatha man]

Originally Posted by Kokatha man

Struth, go away for a couple of hours (not really, actually banging away at the keyboard for my supper) and came back to see what posts have transpired in the interim: struth again!: and to think I just ticked Suzy_A off in the beginners section for suggesting Alphamone spend $150 on a solar filter for his new scope!!!!!

dis iz worryin me, I'm onlies a decrepit ol' fella, Darryl.

This is all getting to me Bert..... it wasn't in the beginners section, it was in the thread below this one! Will I be "white-listed" by our female fraternity?

[omnivorr]

" Will I be "white-listed" by our female fraternity? "
...err, shouldn't that be sorority?

[Alchemy (Clive)]

Originally Posted by leon

firstly this post is not about me, as I would post any image that I feel looks OK,

I suppose I was just saying that newcomers and /or the less experienced, may feel put off because they may feel that their images are not, and never will be of the standard of some of the best on this forum.

Leon

Back on thread......

Glad youre not put out.

I hope the newbies arent put off, with time they may produce some really good stuff, it doesnt happen overnight though. The best on his forum probably have years of experience and some very good gear ( with the exeption of those who paid 18000 for a dud )

i continually try to improve my work as i asume most do. As time goes on and IIS gets older we might see the "bar " as it were lifted even more; but that doesnt mean its not attainable.

Finding the balance on giving advice is something i find i lack a certain amount of "tact" at, and prefer not to ruffle too many feathers. So forgive me if im not as vocal as some.

i note we didnt get too many begginers commenting.... it would have been interesting to hear their thoughts

[Kokatha man]

Originally Posted by omnivorr

" Will I be "white-listed" by our female fraternity? "
...err, shouldn't that be sorority?

Jeez Russ, I'da thought you literary types would've "liked a little alliteration".....

[Kokatha man]

Originally Posted by Alchemy

Back on thread......

Finding the balance on giving advice is something i find i lack a certain amount of "tact" at, and prefer not to ruffle too many feathers. So forgive me if im not as vocal as some.

i note we didnt get too many begginers commenting.... it would have been interesting to hear their thoughts

I really think it's about articulation as much as experience Alchemy: for me the various threads on collimation are a perfect example of this. Reading a lot of responses to questions on that topic, one could be forgiven for thinking half the crew on IIS really don't know have a clue how to collimate - but that of course couldn't be right!

I think that what I in particular wanted to comment on, was the presumption of knowledge that can easily skew an answer beyond the asker's grasp, paticularly for those just starting out, whatever the specific field may be: for mine the example was basic software programs and how to use them on the pc from a complete novice's perspective re imaging.

I see this time and again with subjects like collimation, power supplies/battery questions as well as alignment etc: it's easy to presume and hard to put oneself in a position of complete lack of knowledge to assist someone who knows nothing/very little about the topic - without of course "talking down" to them.

I'm sure you're personal "tact" is far greater than you do yourself credit to: beginners are just that with whatever they're beginning, and a very likely reason why you won't see them involved in these sorts of discussions.....I also think Leon was not only articulating some of his own observations but also extending that perspective to others far less experienced than himself.

Cheers, Darryl.

[skwinty (Steve)]

Hi All
As a newbie (my last post started just like this)!
I have posted my images and even though they were in my opinion not up to scratch as they were short subs and unguided, the response was still that were were quite good. This is nice to hear and encouraging albeit a bit PC so as not to "upset" my "feelings". If i was going to be senstive to criticism I wouldnt post in the first place.
I wont post anymore until my reticule eyepiece and guide camera arrive and are in operation.Then I will post my pics and I will expect positive criticism which will help me improve my skills at astrophotography.
All in all this forum and its members do a great job sharing experiences and know how and is well worth the effort to participate

[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

[Alchemy (Clive)]

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

[Kokatha man]

The comments of sjastro and alchemy were raised some time ago re colour processing of DSO's: it is a subject truly worthy of more debate as I believe we slip further into a world of "spin" that encompasses even our perceptions/presentations of what we see, or should see, around us.

As someone to whom colour and colour theory, as well as how the human brain perceives/construes colour, are essential elements in the profession I ply; I often muse over the various presentations of the same DSO in IIS forum images: that and the comments/advice various people give to the imager re degrees of saturation etc to achieve the "correct" colour balance and degree of saturation.

I also wonder what particular basis some of these commentators rely upon: speculating as to whether their own perceptions of correct colour balance etc are the results of "image standards" they have embraced that can, and often are, "suspect."

Regards, Darryl.

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

A well known US imager has gone as far as to question the ethics of image processing, others claim Photoshop is a scourge.

I tried to post on this subject a few months back - the fear of heresy stopped me from being more candid.

2 wines down may have remedied that...

We are all imaging unchanging objects with unchanging spectral properties, with equipment that automates the entire process thereby removing the element of human interaction - where does the creativity lie in our amazing hobby?
In the only human controlled aspect of the whole sequence... image processing. Photoshop I argue is not a scourge but our liberation!

If you want to cite polar alignment as a creative part of the process I say "get stuffed nerd" - that's technical, not creative!! Tweaking knobs to ensure absolute polar alignment is not creative.

The only place ceativity exists is in the processing of the image - I even find that limited by the prison of the histogram!!!

Perhaps an Astro Art sub section would be an interesting addition - breaking new ground (in the terms of Astro forums at least) just to push the envelope a little - I suppose we have that to a degree in the narrow band imaging guys!?

Root Toot I'm Oot!!!!!

ps...spent so long composing this rant I missed out on your succinct comments Darryl

[Kokatha man]

Originally Posted by dugnsuz

2 wines down may have remedied that...

where does the creativity lie in our amazing hobby?
In the only human controlled aspect of the whole sequence... image processing. Photoshop I argue is not a scourge but our liberation!

If you want to cite polar alignment as a creative part of the process I say "get stuffed nerd" - that's technical, not creative!! Tweaking knobs to ensure absolute polar alignment is not creative.

The only place ceativity exists is in the processing of the image - I even find that limited by the prison of the histogram!!!


Root Toot I'm Oot!!!!!

ps...spent so long composing this rant I missed out on your succinct comments Darryl

I'm sorry Doug, I'll never believe a single word you utter, ever again: you told me you were "tee total" - or was that "t-totalled?"

And my biggest problem with Doug's "get stuffed nerd" attitude is (apart from the coarse language that would, like intoxicating beverages, never pass my own lips) the fact that I have this irredeemable belief that photoshop philanderers are complete nerds too! (Sorry everyone, particularly skwinty and Bert - that's why I avoided your questions the other night re fractal images! I've seen so much of this guff masquerading as "art", with all but the most infinitesimally few exceptions to these mounds of old cobblers) That's enough from me (and from him) for the night, I'm going in for a drink!