On adding "diffraction spikes" post-aquisition

[Fay]

OUCH!!

[Mike]

This is all your fault Fay.

[Tony G]

This subject seems to have caused a verbal war between a few members, which I believe forums are for, so we'll see what happens when I add diffreaction spikes to my next Moon image. 

Tony G

PS I still personally like the diffraction spikes still.

[Ian]

I saw Rodney Marsh moon on I'm a celebrity, I have no desire to see yours. Diffraction spikes or not. Sounds a bit eye watering, to be honest...

[Fay]

Tony, I am imagining your Moon with spikes!!!!!!!!!

Well, I think that when doing astrophotography as a hobby & you use any sort of enhancement, be it curves, levels, filters RGB Ha & the convoluting ones etc etc. it is false, but how else can us humans get an idea of the shapes & different textures of space?
A lot of things are a personal preference & some of the professionals go a bit too far, using so many tools & colours. Personally I think you have to pull the reins in a bit, not because I can't do it as well, but you have to be a bit realistic & allow objects to be seen as they most probably are & not defininitely as they are not, if you know what I mean.

If imaging for scientific reasons, they still enhance to bring out the features that they may be studying at the time so as to get a better knowledge of what they are looking at, but that is ok as it is done for a different reason.

Have the stags unlocked horns now??

[Rocket Pooch]

Wow, I thought I was the only very opinionated person here who was publically verbal about astronomy.

I think this thread has been great for two reasons: -

1.   It's been a very healthy discussion with regards to what people like and dislike.
2.   I think we have definitely identified that people in the society are very passionate about imaging, especially for pretty pictures in this case.

One thing that is at the back of my mind though and why I kinda lost it a little earlier this week is that when Fay (the root of all evil as she will now be known) put her image up on the forum, the feedback given to the image was a little harsh and probably non considered.  By this I mean that rather than expressing an "it's nice" or "it's crap" the feedback started to go in the reason for the production of the image, and why it should be done i.e. Science and not for Fun.

Fay and many others here spend £1,000's of buying kit to take images for fun, not science.  Therefore a preference and pride in the presentation of your images is important to the person taking them and also to the audience and therefore the feedback should normally be proportionate to the objective of the Image.  I has a real issue with some of the earlier comments made in the thread because it seemed that what was deemed to be the reason for taking pictures for member A was not acceptable for member B.  And if I was to be brutally honest member B was overly pretentious with their views, and tried to cover it up by techno babble.

I have no doubt that at some point in time, some of us will get into some science in the future, when I don't know because frankly it can be very dull; may I quote "here is a picture of the wall facing east in my back garden" the speaker in this case would be considered by some members of the society and being technically correct in what they we're doing i.e. good science.  Personally I thought these kind of people really need to be left in a dark room, because they can turn people off astronomy so quick it's unreal.  Sorry I digress.

I suppose what I'm really saying here is that any effort to photograph the night sky is good, I remember Paul W image of McNeil's object as a big bonus a few years ago during DSC.

I know that John P has had I think 5 images published in Astronomy Now etc.  Fay is the most committed imager out of us all.  And the new members who have come on board recently have mainly been because of the work of the imagers, and the welcome environment DSC and other such events have provided.  Even our chairman (all hail the chairman) has got hooked.  We cannot put a message out to people that we are here only for science, I'm sure probably half the society are, and the other half are not and that's the truth.

So it might be a good idea to park this chat for now, personally I'm more than up for an on-line argument about the types of calibration needed to provide a 99.9% flat and accurate image for photometry or even a discussion on counterbalancing the chip dynamics against the recorded ADU's within spectra to give you an accurate spectrograph (and I'm 100% Robert M would win this discussion).  Or the merits of telescope design and post processing techniques.  But this was only a bloody picture.

So in summary, I look forward to seeing more images form the members, with our without diffraction spikes.  I also look forward to seeing more science, we could actually put the Raw Calibrated FIT's up onto a share if other members want to analyse them?

But most of all I look forward to the skies clearing so we can all get out and use £1,000's of kit to do something the professionals do better, but maybe that's the point of being an amateur?  Or am I missing something?


Woof!

[JohnP]

Fay - Especially for you....... This image is natural in everyway..... John

[Rocket Pooch]

John,

Is that part of the Deer Lick Group NGC7331?

Chris

[Fay]

Wow, Chris, you reminded me of Martin Luther King there & what a lovely stag full of tetesterone!

(think that's the correct spelling, sounds like a pasta!

[Rocket Pooch]

Wow, Chris, you reminded me of Martin Luther King there

May I ask why?

[Fay]

Well, it was  a really powerful post, & thanks for your kind words.

[Rocket Pooch]

Well, it was  a really powerful post, & thanks for your kind words.

Thank you and that's a fiver I owe you

[RobertM]

Apologies if the words 'pretty pictures' offended anyone, I well know the amount of effort (and grief) that's required to take just one  !  As Chris has so rightly pointed out, it's the thrill and enjoyment of seeing the Universe in all it's glory however we want to see it,  but we all still dream of discovering the undiscovered.

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Douglas Adams 

[Tony G]

Its not brilliant, but I still like it.

Tony G

[Fay]

I love it, Tony, you put them in just where they should be!!!!!!