Coupla questions for you. This is with an STL11 so I imagine you have cropped these a fair bit to get that image scale right?
Also do you find you get round stars to the corner of your 1.6X extender or do you crop out any coma? I take it you are not using a flattener with the extender or are you?
You got some fabulous tracking there.
Greg.
The 1.6 extender does not yield a flat field, even when using the 67 flattener. However the radial elongation that is produced can be processed out with some care & patience. When I've finished this image I will show the full frame.
BTW, there is no change to the image scale - it remains 1.05 arcsec/pixel. All I did was move them within the original frame and crop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut
Geez, some seriously talented processing skills right there Marcus, a stunning effort indeed.
Thanks a lot Fred!
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Top shot Marcus. The details is simply astonishing and the processing outstanding. although I'll be the party pooper re:compositing and scaling. There is a fine line between taking shots and "painting" even for presentation purpose with a relatively black background.
I'm not a purist by any mean and there is latitude with artistic licence when processing with details and colors but not scale or re-positioning IMHO . Sorry.
No apologies necessary mate, but sounds like you are a purist!! . Painting? Scaling? Nah, I just moved them so you could appreciate the detail without browsing too much real estate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Fitz-Henr
Ahhh, Marcus-san!! Great images of the Trio in Leo (or is that Lio? - sorry, private joke everyone). The long combined exposure time has enabled you to show the very faint outer regions of the galaxies - really great stuff!!
I am with Marc (ze Frogginator) on the subject of compositing though - would prefer to see even a faint grey line dividing the images ... and I am pure (no need to add a noun to the end of that either Marcus!).
Thanks David.
Nah, a faint grey line would spoil the effect and simply be a distraction.
I'm not a purist by any mean and there is latitude with artistic licence when processing with details and colors but not scale or re-positioning IMHO . Sorry.
What about all the award winning Photoshop composite planetary images, solar eclipse sequences, planets exposed as they set leaving a bright continuous streak, starless nebula images, false colour narrowband images etc etc....a visualy striking astronomical image doesn't have to be positionally accurate to be attractive, just like it doesn't have to be true colour, if it comunicates to the viewer and looks good why not
Doing what Marcus has done is not an attempt at deceit but rather a nifty way to display the qualities of a galactic system (ala an eclipse or planetary sequence) in a way that presenting them in their true positions can not do as well...so why not
Each of his galaxies are beautifully processed and seemlessly bunched up so their awe-inspiring appearence is further accentuated.
No apologies necessary mate, but sounds like you are a purist!! . Painting? Scaling? Nah, I just moved them so you could appreciate the detail without browsing too much real estate.
I realise that but it is done so well that I thought it to be a tad misleading. I didn't click until I read Mike's post then realised the image had been tempered with. I have to admit I 'm not familiar with the region as I've never imaged it.
Whoa, "moved", "positionally accurate", thats interesting, whats up there, you mean galaxies were moved to suit composition, without stating on posting, really?.
Whoa, "moved", "positionally accurate", thats interesting, whats up there, you mean galaxies were moved to suit composition, without stating on posting, really?.
That's correct. A photo taken is a photo. There is a difference IMO between processing and retouching or compositing or whatever you want to call it. I think Peter W. once said about color balance we don't shoot people with green flesh tone so we adjust colors accordingly. In the same line I'd say we don't composite people with small heads and big feet at their chin level. Not having a go in any shape or form, Marcus/Fred. The details in this shot are outstanding. I just said what I thought. The composition is wrong. I'm not a fan. That's all no big deal.
I realise that but it is done so well that I thought it to be a tad misleading. I didn't click until I read Mike's post then realised the image had been tempered with. I have to admit I 'm not familiar with the region as I've never imaged it.
Marc, I clearly stated what I'd done in the text under the image on Pbase. No deceit, no attempt at misleading, just a cute (and visually striking) way of showing the detail in these magnificent galaxies.
What about all the award winning Photoshop composite planetary images, solar eclipse sequences, planets exposed as they set leaving a bright continuous streak, starless nebula images, false colour narrowband images etc etc....a visualy striking astronomical image doesn't have to be positionally accurate to be attractive, just like it doesn't have to be true colour, if it comunicates to the viewer and looks good why not
Doing what Marcus has done is not an attempt at deceit but rather a nifty way to display the qualities of a galactic system (ala an eclipse or planetary sequence) in a way that presenting them in their true positions can not do as well...so why not
Each of his galaxies are beautifully processed and seemlessly bunched up so their awe-inspiring appearence is further accentuated.
That's my opinion anyway.....
Mike
Agreed. But all of you've mentioned are very obvious compositions. I'm by no mean saying Marcus is deceiving. I'm just saying the composition is not obvious so you think it's a real picture. Spatially it's wrong and you can't obviously tell by looking at it.
Let's take another example. If I do a widefield mosaic between M8 (your favourite) through to M20, then on to M17, M16 etc... But for artistic licence I decide to blend in the gap between M20 and M17 because I decide to shorten it and show the two close up. Now let's say the blend is done so well you can't even tell there's a bit missing. That would be a real nice picture but totally wrong IMO. This is "painting" and I have a problem with "painting". Unless it's nice chicks in the lagoon.
Sorry Marcus, sincere appologies, on inspecting the foot note on the lmage link. Its all good in this case, your excussed . You might have mentioned this in the body of the IIS text tho.
Marc, I clearly stated what I'd done in the text under the image on Pbase. No deceit, no attempt at misleading, just a cute (and visually striking) way of showing the detail in these magnificent galaxies.
Yep - our posts must have crossed each other. Don't want to start a s**t fight Marcus and certainly not implying any deceit or misleading or other on your part. Not a fan of spatial re-positioning explicit or otherwise and I think it's opening a can of worms as of what's real and not. I'll shut up now
Last edited by multiweb; 02-05-2010 at 11:17 PM.
Reason: spelling
Agreed. But all of you've mentioned are very obvious compositions. I'm by no mean saying Marcus is deceiving. I'm just saying the composition is not obvious so you think it's a real picture. Spatially it's wrong and you can't obviously tell by looking at it.
Let's take another example. If I do a widefield mosaic between M8 (your favourite) through to M20, then on to M17, M16 etc... But for artistic licence I decide to blend in the gap between M20 and M17 because I decide to shorten it and show the two close up. Now let's say the blend is done so well you can't even tell there's a bit missing. That would be a real nice picture but totally wrong IMO. This is "painting" and I have a problem with "painting". Unless it's nice chicks in the lagoon.
Ok ok... but I don't care what you say, there is NOTHING unusual or deceitful about this photo though ok! ...especially what's in the trunks!
Heck - just goes to show how slow I am - have only just realised the FOV has been condensed - retaining the PA of the galaxies relative to each other had me tricked.
I guess that's one vote to the "deception" camp, but I'm giving 2 votes to the "innovative" category - its just so engaging.
Great details extracted from the data set....but ummm..Nup. You've crossed the line Marcus. About the only credit I'll give you is that you didn't paint in your own stars. Harsh, but when you're doing collage work, you need defined separation. Bring on the full frame.
Great details extracted from the data set....but ummm..Nup. You've crossed the line Marcus. About the only credit I'll give you is that you didn't paint in your own stars. Harsh, but when you're doing collage work, you need defined separation. Bring on the full frame.
Thanks Jase, glad you appreciated what I was intending - to show concisely the detail in my unfinished image. No lines crossed at all IMO and I make no apologies whatsoever for how that was done, especially since I clearly stated what I had done in the caption of my image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobF
Heck - just goes to show how slow I am - have only just realised the FOV has been condensed - retaining the PA of the galaxies relative to each other had me tricked.
I guess that's one vote to the "deception" camp, but I'm giving 2 votes to the "innovative" category - its just so engaging.
Another vote for not reading the caption to the image perhaps? I think my only mistake was assuming everyone would immediately realise the "spacial adjustment" done in this very well known field ... hence the apology to the purists in my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Ok ok... but I don't care what you say, there is NOTHING unusual or deceitful about this photo though ok! ...especially what's in the trunks!
Glad I could insert some controversy into your day
I am surprised it was controversial at all.
I personally don't see anything wrong with artistic presentation.
The purpose of the image isn't scientific - its an image of an object in the sky and presented in a way you can see them all at once. Rob Gendler has done something similar with the Sculptor group of galaxies.
If its purpose were scientific then that would be different.
And with art of course you are not going to please everyone's viewpoint as thankfully we are all different (the Borg are usually presented as evil in Star Trek hehe).
Well processed Marcus, looking forward to the LRGB and this will make a fine lum layer.
cheers
Martin
Thanks Martin - yep, can't wait to add the RGB!
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
No need for you to apologise for anything, Marcus. It was a great piece of work.
You can always say that you had arranged for spacetime expansion to do a brief contraction in the area you were taking the piccie in
Cheers Carl! Truth be known, there was a extra dimensional anomaly in my vicinity that allowed a brief window into a parallel universe where they really ARE that close together
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
I am surprised it was controversial at all.
I personally don't see anything wrong with artistic presentation.
The purpose of the image isn't scientific - its an image of an object in the sky and presented in a way you can see them all at once. Rob Gendler has done something similar with the Sculptor group of galaxies.
If its purpose were scientific then that would be different.
And with art of course you are not going to please everyone's viewpoint as thankfully we are all different (the Borg are usually presented as evil in Star Trek hehe).
Cheers Carl! Truth be known, there was a extra dimensional anomaly in my vicinity that allowed a brief window into a parallel universe where they really ARE that close together
Is that the Dr Who theme I can hear in the background??!!
Marcus - a really great shot. Composite or not its spectacular in it rendition of the faint outer regions, especially the tidal tail in M66. Great composition showing the different aspects of each of these galaxies their dust etc. Remarkable and best presentation of the trio Ive seen. Was it 3 hr for each galaxy?
although I'll be the party pooper re:compositing and scaling. There is a fine line between taking shots and "painting" even for presentation purpose with a relatively black background.
. Painting? Scaling? Nah, I just moved them so you could appreciate the detail without browsing too much real estate.
...
...especially what's in the trunks!
