Setting The Standards

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

[quote=Kokatha man;318153]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?"

Never believe anything you read on t'internet - Rule#1

Rule#2 - if you're going to get into imaging... PS is your friend!! Embrace the philandering nerd within. Or end up painting your images!!
Step up and expose your own "guff" or shut-up

[Kokatha man]

[quote=dugnsuz;318158]

Originally Posted by Kokatha man

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?"

Never believe anything you read on t'internet - Rule#1

Rule#2 - if you're going to get into imaging... PS is your friend!! Embrace the philandering nerd within. Or end up painting your images!!
Step up and expose your own "guff" or shut-up

Ooooh....! Did I touch a nerd there Doug....? err.....I meant "a nerve there Doug?" As fer "me own guff" it abounds around this fair little city: but you're wellcome to google it, my website and a plethora of other guff about me and me work anytime. I'm freely appraised of my professional competence regularly.....I'm sure I could find room for yours' too!

Cheers and good humour, Darryl.

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Why you!!
I Oughta...!!!

[Kokatha man]

Lest anyone think this is otherwise, this is all good fun: I have a great deal of empathy with Doug and what he has to cope with; especially living in Hahndorf.....

Spent nearly 20 years just down the road in Meadows (that explains it, says Doug.....)

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Originally Posted by Kokatha man

Lest anyone think this is otherwise, this is all good fun: I have a great deal of empathy with Doug and what he has to cope with; especially living in Hahndorf.....

Spent nearly 20 years just down the road in Meadows (that explains it, says Doug.....)

Wouldn't live anywhere else

[omnivorr]

..there's firstly of course a natural reticence, more or less a matter of personal trait in a person, but beyond that.. there's the hurdle of even knowing what to ask!! the 'unknown unknowns', so to speak...

then there's the jargon barrier.. the technical aspects.. and the theoretical/science behind the 'how to' to be learned... but surrounding ALL that, is the ethos of the place....... is it 'boys own', 'mine's bigger than yours', ... has it become a sausage factory of me-too'ers, a fashion house fan-zine full of fads and fetishes.. or is there room to breathe for 'the noob'?

..."it takes all kinds", and some may relish the 'beauty contest' while others might want more than "that's nice", but not the full Bernard King/Red Symons treatment... more a "what I dun wrong 'ere?" "Is it s'posed to be that colour?" Which brings me to the PhotoShop question.. is it a tool? ..an aid like a coma corrector? ..or does it offer creative freedom.. or does it impose another barrier to the uninitiated? ...how many get past the first few standard effects they're shown? ( using $30-worth of the potential they paid $700 for )...does it all end up like home movies, with overused fade&wipe, inappropriate pan&zoom and uninteresting content..other than to those who made it/ are in it

personally I don't care.. it's proprietry and overpriced beyond my means, and I'd use 'the Gimp' for free if I was going to devote the effort to worthwhile image-doctoring....

....besides Doug ..one person's polar alignment might be more of an art than another's point'n'click pokie-spin with foto-chop... think Zen and tea ceremony

but back to Leon's main theme, if I recall it correctly.. vis, seeing more noob pic's posted... and "the raising of the bar-setting the standards"

tho it might impinge on the notions Doug raised too..

...some might consider all the Ha-capture de rigour, but then a noob is disappointed to peer thru a scope at grey blurry nonexciting reality.. is all this "National Geographic" photography a sham? .."life's not like that"

or am I just taking 'happysnaps' of what my own eyes saw? ..or is photography a way of extending the reach of what I can glean from the sky?

do I want to make copies of "The Monarch of the Glen".. or paint my own picture? ...now, with so many things to think about.. nevermind getting the gear together and finding a cloud-free night to get out there and actually DO it... I'm beginning to think it's a wonder any pic's get posted at all!! ..apart from the one's from ready-to-go observatory-based purpose-built high-end practitioners of course ... and how do they find the time to do all that stacking and curving and unsharp masking and....

...and then it's like fishing.. hours in the cold wet dark... the yuk and bother with all that 'bait&tackle' .... a lot would look at it and decide to get takeaway!

Cheers
Russ

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Alchemy

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

The ethics of imaging was brought up by Stan Moore.
http://www.stanmooreastro.com/

Stan is a frequent contributor to the SBIG user list.

Here are a couple of his quotes on the subject.

"Several years ago by a small group (headed by Wil Milan) attempted to
develop a protocol for "ethical imaging", but it became so complicated
and controversial that we disbanded the group. Many of the images are
so processed that it is not reasonable to try to document all the
machinations. However, there is a simple way to keep every image
honest – publish the unmolested FITS along with your artistic
interpretation. Benoit & I have advocated that for years and although
I do post several FITS on my web site, I must confess that I am
negligent (though I freely make the FITS available on request).
However, I do notice that several of the more "famous" imagers refuse
to share their FITS for whatever reason..."

"This issue has been raised several times before. A few years ago I
hosted an anonymous on-line survey to determine what, if any,
consensus existed regarding imaging ethics. The results were rather
disappointing as many people expressed a great tolerance (even
enthusiasm) for manipulation in the quest for "prettiness". There
seem to be many who have no qualms about painting or other
manipulations, though I think that most of this is self-excused
under the guise of "correcting" the image. Most such corrections
are of course scientific fraud, so "caveat emptor" (many "pretty
pictures" are scientifically useless (or worse) and should only be
used for brief visual amusement)."

Regards

Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small

[iceman (Mike)]

Well that's the thing, isn't it - most astrophotographers merely are presenting their images for visual enjoyment - not for scientific analysis and study. For deep-space images, the large telescopes in professional observatories do a much better job of obtaining the data required for scientific study.

I doubt there's much more than amateurs can present in a widefield image of Eta Carinae (for example) that would be of use to scientists.

Planetary imaging is different though, and amateurs can, and regularly do, contribute images which are useful for scientific analysis.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

The way I see it is that the ultimate "bar", as such, has been set by the Hubble Space Telescope, and the images it has taken and that NASA have published in print. To me, these images are the benchmark - as unreachable as they are.

I pretend to strive to equal this quality in everything I'll attempt to image. Of course, it'll never be, but the mere act of the attempt and a reasonable result gives me great pleasure. I assume that no one here will likely ever reach that spectacular level of image quality either - so I'm happy in the knowledge that I sit in a room of fellow-tryers here on IIS, and that everyone here is also doing their own level best to produce the best they can.

What I do get out of critique given here on IIS is a sense of direction, if not implicit instruction. Comments are generally constructive, and this is a good thing. I do think that there are a certain number of PC critiques that do try and make the imager a little happier than they would otherwise be if given the truth, but you can pretty easily pick up on these. The collective experience is what comes out if you read enough posts.

I don't want to compare my images to Leons, Dougs or Erics - I want to compare them to the benchmark. Well...apart from Mike Sidonio, who's imaging I absolutely admire.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

The way I see it is that the ultimate "bar", as such, has been set by the Hubble Space Telescope, and the images it has taken and that NASA have published in print. To me, these images are the benchmark - as unreachable as they are.

I have heard that the press release images, as opposed to the scientific images, are processed differently.

Steven

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I have heard that the press release images, as opposed to the scientific images, are processed differently.

Steven

Whilst that may be true, I can only go on what I see in print.

[Alchemy (Clive)]

seems like most like to "doctor' their images, i actually get a lot of satisfaction playing with them, and putting them on the wall.

I do notice that several of the more "famous" imagers refuse
to share their FITS for whatever reason..."

I suspect that if that were done then all the work put into aquiring the image is given away, those of the better imagers here do advertise their images for sale, allow us a look at a lower res version. perhaps in the hope of funding some part of their very expensive hobby.

As an aside, people buy expensive ccd cameras in the hope of getting better and more detailed images (just put aside the processing for a moment), is not this parallel to the processing question.... when is enough enough.

i like looking at any images that are well presented ( not full of noise, blurry, vignetted etc)and show me something of the granduer of this incredible universe we live in.

[netwolf]

We are all on a journey and sometimes we move so fast that the color of life becomes a blur of white. Sometimes we must slow to another's pace and reach out and encourage. And hope others will do the same for us. What would it mean to reach the top of a mountain and not share it with anyone. What would anything in life mean if not for the realness of someone else's opinion. Weather it is cold or warm or hot. Let it be as it is to each there own coming of age. There is no compulsion in truth. We all seek it we all journey we all struggle.

[Kokatha man]

Originally Posted by netwolf

We are all on a journey and sometimes we move so fast that the color of life becomes a blur of white. Sometimes we must slow to another's pace and reach out and encourage. And hope others will do the same for us. What would it mean to reach the top of a mountain and not share it with anyone. What would anything in life mean if not for the realness of someone else's opinion

That's a good one Fahim; it has some of what I was trying to convey re this thread, and what I took from Leon's original posting in it!

Regards, Darryl.

[netwolf]

That someone would take the time to review our work and give an opinion is in itself the greatest thing this forum has to offer. Taking the opinion you can be sour about it, you can be bitter or you can be happy. Happy that some one slowed down to look at your work. Gave hopefully there real assessment of it. The variety of opinion is like the variety of the colors of life and a reflection of where each of us is on there journey. This is what is so great about this fourm, the community is made up of such variety of individuals. Like the Vulcan saying "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" and the heavens we look at do attest to the truth of 'it.

Dreidel by Don Mclean

I feel like a spinning top or a Dreidel
The spinning don't stop when you leave the cradle
You just slow down
Round and around the world you go
Spinning through the lives of the people you know
We all slow down
How you gonna keep on turning from day to day?
How you gonna keep from turning your life away?

Regards
Fahim

[Astrod00d]

As a newb, when I post my own work I hope for some feedback. Compliments are encouraging. Public critiques help myself and others improve.
A comment on black levels helped me get subtle detail in my images.
Another comment on making better use of curves has improved the contrast range I can achieve.
A discussion on flatteners for the ED80 has raised so many comments and ideas.
Yet another comment on guiding... I'll barlow my guide scope and see if it improves accuracy.

Thank you all for your constructive comments, keep them coming please!

Cheers,

Rob

[Alchemy (Clive)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The ethics of imaging was brought up by Stan Moore.
http://www.stanmooreastro.com/

Stan is a frequent contributor to the SBIG user list.

Many of the images are so processed that it is not reasonable to try to document all the machinations. reason..."

"This issue has been raised several times before. (many "pretty
pictures" are scientifically useless (or worse) and should only be
used for brief visual amusement)."

Regards

Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small

i have cut the quote to include the bits i wanted to emphasize and the middle bit is a subquote from stan moore not sj astro


i have had a squiz at his site( stan moore), it seems he mas an exceeding knowledge of stuff and his pages are full of detailed formula and some exquisite images........BUT

I also feel its a bit of snobbery, to say i have 100,000 dollars of top notch gear and know all the formulas and you must do it like me type of thing, as previously said his images are exquisite... albeit mostly B/W so possibly a narrow band or luminace image. But i am never likely to go into the depth he has and to say i have to do it his way just doesnt work for me. hes a purist and thats fine.... some people will only listen to orchestral classical music.... i like a bit of rock and roll and the blues.

[skwinty (Steve)]

I think that the criticism offered by some members of this forum seems to be determined by the cost of the equipment used.
If you have high end gear, then the criticism tends to be honest and to the point, whereas if your equipment is low budget then the criticism tends to be condescending.
How are us noobs supposed to learn if the yardstick applied is in accordance with expense.
If my images suffer from vignetting, lack of flats or darks, over or under exposure or whatever then say so, regardless of how much I spent on the equipment.
If you apply software to highlight flaws, then do it for all images and not just those that are taken with top end gear. If you just critique on the face value then apply that method across the board. By making financial distinctions to your criticism, then as far as I am concerned, there is no value to the criticism. I want to learn how to improve my imagery and I certainly won't learn if a lesser standard is applied to my image purely because I use a DSLR instead of a SBIG 1100.
In my opinion a flaw is a flaw, and if they exist in my imagery then I appreciate it when criticism shows me that flaw. Then I can do something about improving my imagery.