NGC 7822 and Cederblad 214 - Page 2

Octane (Humayun) · #21 21-10-2010, 09:07 PM

Martin,

A magical question mark. Beautiful processing.

H

Paul Haese · #22 22-10-2010, 10:02 AM

Nice Martin. I like the "excessively smooth background" myself. That is because when I see through my eyes at the world around me I don't see noise everywhere I look. I see a smooth seamless noise free image as I look out the window. Apparently I would conclude that nebulae in far off reaches would appear the same way too. Maybe I am wrong but everywhere I look in the real world I don' see noise. Ergo it must be the same elsewhere!

Your skill in processing is beyond mine as usual Martin. Well done on the image.

No one else will say it but I am going to say something. Richard go away please. I cannot see how your comments are constructive and they just appear spiteful and ill thought out.

wysiwyg (Mark) · #23 22-10-2010, 12:44 PM

Stunning Result Martin!

Octane (Humayun) · #24 22-10-2010, 01:42 PM

Paul, just to back you up on that. I don't think any of us have ever claimed to be posting scientific images on this forum. And, if someone has, then, they're bs'ing.

We massage and process our data so much, that, by the end of the pre- and post-processing routines, the subject we present would resemble nothing like reality.

This is art more than it is a science. The majority of us engage in this hobby because it is a challenging one and because we like to take pretty pictures. I dare say that astrophotography is the most difficult discipline in the entire photographic domain. Being the techie-type, this discipline (hobby) then forms the ultimate pursuit.

At least on IceInSpace, I don't ever recall anyone claiming to represent science when posting their astrophotographic images. Unless, of course, if you're a asteroid/comet hunter or a supernovae researcher; you're likely not to contribute your images here, anyway, as they're more for your research.

I wonder if those who bemoan masters of their craft -- the Pugh's, Gendler's, Jenning's and Crawford's of the astrophotography world -- also bemoan Rembrandt's neoclassical paintings because they're not grounded in reality.

H

strongmanmike (Michael) · #25 22-10-2010, 02:58 PM

Oh God....

us all

Plenty of Science in some of our images Humi, had this argument (friendly one) before, just depends on your deffinition of Science I guess..?

I think the ideas you are refering to are to do with the science of "correct" colour and that's quite an interesting debate, might be like a "we should up the speed limit" type debate though

Mike

Paramount · #26 22-10-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Nice Martin. I like the "excessively smooth background" myself. That is because when I see through my eyes at the world around me I don't see noise everywhere I look. I see a smooth seamless noise free image as I look out the window. Apparently I would conclude that nebulae in far off reaches would appear the same way too. Maybe I am wrong but everywhere I look in the real world I don' see noise. Ergo it must be the same elsewhere!

I don't totally agree with that Paul, while I agree with you on the fact that we don't see "noise" when looking out of the window at our surroundings our eyes see things very differently to a camera and this perhaps is one of the negatives about the digital era in that we can manipulate data, sometimes in an artisitic way or to over sharpen, over smooth etc. Seeing an image such as this by Martin with the very smooth background is probably not how you would see it it in real life as I feel some of the more intricate detail in the structure of the nebulosity is masked because of it. This can be compared to the digitally enhanced images that you see on the front of glossy fashion magazines of super models with lovely, blemish free, smooth skin. Is this how they would appear if you saw them in person? No they wouldn't. Please note that when I made my comment about the image looking too smooth for my liking I mentioned nothing about noise. This wasn't a criticism it was a personal point of view.
At the end of the day it is like people have said, it is a personal like or dislike about smoothing and sharpening. Personally I don't care much for either as I prefer the results without which is why I have changed my workflow in processing my images
Best wishes
Gordon

strongmanmike (Michael) · #27 22-10-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paramount

I don't totally agree with that Paul, while I agree with you on the fact that we don't see "noise" when looking out of the window at our surroundings our eyes see things very differently to a camera and this perhaps is one of the negatives about the digital era in that we can manipulate data, sometimes in an artisitic way or to over sharpen, over smooth etc. Seeing an image such as this by Martin with the very smooth background is probably not how you would see it it in real life as I feel some of the more intricate detail in the structure of the nebulosity is masked because of it. This can be compared to the digitally enhanced images that you see on the front of glossy fashion magazines of super models with lovely, blemish free, smooth skin. Is this how they would appear if you saw them in person? No they wouldn't. Please note that when I made my comment about the image looking too smooth for my liking I mentioned nothing about noise. This wasn't a criticism it was a personal point of view.
At the end of the day it is like people have said, it is a personal like or dislike about smoothing and sharpening. Personally I don't care much for either as I prefer the results without which is why I have changed my workflow in processing my images
Best wishes
Gordon

Good points Gordon, I kinda agree especially in regard to the smoothing ...but I am not getting involved...never...

Hagar (Doug) · #28 22-10-2010, 04:17 PM

Without bitting into this argument too hard as I have another on the go at the moment. I wonder how correct any of our images are with respect to the actual photos released many LY ago. Who is to say we are seeing it without some forms of refraction from passing through gas and dust on it's way to us let alone the atmosphere of our planet.
Overall it falls back to a matter of personal choise and in most cases any scientific benifit is almost the result of accident rather than good planning. The scientific variables are massive and probably more than any of us can truely comprehend.
There would be no point in posting an image if we all got the exact same result. Imagine the deep space comments "Nice image" if you got that much. Maybe more like "Can someone post something new".

Very nice Martin, I'd be very happy with this image. Just what I have come to expect from the ASTROPHOTOGRAPHER OF THE YEAR.

Martin Pugh · #29 30-10-2010, 12:18 PM

Hello again everyone, and sorry for my tardiness.

I am just back from AIC (well, that finished last Sunday of course, but I only got home from California very late Wednesday night).

Thanks for all of the additional comments.
In truth you know, I did oversaturate this now that I look at it again.

Just to be clear on the exposure time, it was 6hrs:5hrs:22hrs. I also have just realised that I have a few more hours Ha to add to this from my STX image earlier in the year, so look out for an update.

cheers
Martin

strongmanmike (Michael) · #30 30-10-2010, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

Just to be clear on the exposure time, it was 6hrs:5hrs:22hrs.
cheers
Martin

I did this much exposure on my Helix (had to throw a few hours = down to only 27hrs) but it nearly killed me with the 7 trips to my dark(ish) sky site that were necessary

Oh to have a Paramount

..and/or an observatory too

A bigger scope would help of course...do I sense a 17.5" CDK is in the wings Martin..?

Mike

Martin Pugh · #31 30-10-2010, 02:00 PM

Hey Mike
yes, your inverted Helix is a striking image showing great detail.

We are about to enter winter here so I will be back to trawling through snow and clearing paths to roll out my scope.

Yes, 17" CDK is in the offing, although, I am also in conversation with Officina Stellare about a 16" Pro RC. I have time on this, and the purchase will be next year.
Meanwhile, got an MX on order and 2 x STX on the way!!!!!

Cheers
Martin

strongmanmike (Michael) · #32 30-10-2010, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

Yes, 17" CDK is in the offing, although, I am also in conversation with Officina Stellare about a 16" Pro RC. I have time on this, and the purchase will be next year.
Meanwhile, got an MX on order and 2 x STX on the way!!!!!

Cheers
Martin

Boy someone hit pay dirt

Oh yeh the Stellare's look awesome, Gerd Neumann thinks they are the beez kneez as far as quality of construction goes but the CDK is certainly a goer too...oh to be in your undecided shoes

Mike

dpastern (Dave Pastern) · #33 30-10-2010, 09:26 PM

I like it, the background may be smoothed, but it's not over done to my eyes. Plenty of detail there too, perhaps could do with a bit more selective sharpening to bring out the globules.

I'll have to say that since our eyes don't really see colour in low light, we'll probably never know how this object looks in "real life". For now, I'm happy to accept it as is.

Dave