1239 replies to this topic

[Arthur Dent]

No, you're not the only one Skip.

I was on the point of posting a comment to the same effect, then rememberd the last time I took a humerous post at face value....

Alex does like to pull our legs doesn't he?

Anyway, on a more serious note...



MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE

ARt

[sonny.barile]

Arthur
What is the "Towel Day" ref.?

[Peter9]

@Tel
How hard would it be to get a photo like the one from the UK Magazine or your photo of the "Running Man" (By the way it's brilliant) with an 8SE or a 10" Newtonian (equatorial mount)?

Just curious. I'm thinking about trying some astrophotography on some
planets for starters, maybe with a webcam on an 8SE.

8se can't be used for imaging!

In fact, that is flippin' hilarious Alex. :rofl5: :rofl2:
This from the guy that blew that myth out of the water. Am I the only one that caught Alex's humor?

You were the only one to comment Skip, and a very apt comment at that.
I bet Alex is tickled Purple(I thought I'd have a change from Pink ) by it.

Regards. Peter.

[haytor]

Alex,

the force needs you, so dont you dare go over to the dark side, stay with the force,without you, the force becomes weaker!

Tom.

[haytor]

Tel

Thanks for the capture and the original posting but

Tom

Personal preferences, I'm more with you than Tel's colour rendition because that's the way I see it rather than the way the electronic equipment sees it, no offence Tel, just personal preference.



KR

Rob

Thanks very much for your input Rob,

but just to be clear, its not about what the equipment sees, more a question of the post processing of the data collected, and how we post process it, my real point therefore, is that i lean more to the side that often, "less means more", in this case, i tend to use muted colours rather than over saturated colours, this i feel can hide detail, but again it depends really what it is we want from our captures, some prefer vivid coloured images while those like myself, want to preserve as much detail that, that vivid colour might hide.

Tom.

[Arthur Dent]

Hi Sonny

These might help:

Wiki - Towel Day

TowelDay.org

A towel is the most massively useful object that a galactic hitch-hiker can take with them on their travels.

Art

[Skip]

Hi Tom,

I hate to be so equivocal about this, but some photos I like a bit subdued and some I like fairly vivid. I guess it depends on the photo. So here I am straddling the fence - <OUCH! >. I actually have not seen many astrophotos that I totally dislike. They all range from pretty darn good to outstanding, IMO!

[haytor]

Hi Skip,

i dont see your comments as sitting on the fence, you make valid points, and, i can only agree with your thoughts, at the end of the day, it really does not matter if i or Tel differ over vivid or muted colour, but it was simply an exercise to discover what others thought on this question, both Tel and i posed the question to see what reaction we would get.

While Tel and i will continue to differ, it really makes no difference to the way we will process our individual images, after all, the word individual is very apt for all of us who try our hand at processing, long may it be so!

Tom.

[Tel]

Hi Folks,

Whether to colour saturate, (somewhat), or not, the other aspect on which I think both Tom and I were trying to solicit ideas, concerned the actual colour(s) of objects themselves.

Aside from the use of filters, what perhaps is the consensus of opinion on how the "true" colour (or otherwise), of an object should be presented and indeed what do we regard as the "true" colour ? Certainly there's no standard or norm available that I know of !

I hope my earlier posting of the two versions of the Crescent Nebula serve to illustrate this dilemma, (if one may call it such ?).

Any views would be most welcome and appreciated.

Best regards,
Tel

[sonny.barile]

So you're not Arthur Dent after all? But are you at least really an Art?
You will probably scold me for this but I never read that book. In fact, I avoided it like the plague. I have friends who are always quoting it (very obscure references) and seem to have it committed to memory. They all laugh at each other and I dont get it. It drives me insane. I think when that dreaded day comes around, I may publicly burn a towel!!!!!!!

[Peter9]

I think that "True" colour, at the level you lads are working at, (equipment wise) can only relate to the colours as you personally see them.
Even with Hubble etc, scientists are unsure of what the true colours really are.
Scientist also use colour to highlight certain elements within Nebulars, galaxies etc,. So in many of the images, we are seeing false colours in the truest sense of the word.
Irrespective of how they are using the colours, I do like the vivid colours that are produced by the big telescopes.

Similarly, the colours you lads end up with relate to how you like to see the end product, and not, I would suggest, what you think the true colours really are.
I do like to see the images you all produce regardless of the strength of colour, but the question was to give our opinion on whether we preferred harsh or muted colours, and I prefer the harsher or more vivid colours.

Regards. Peter.

[FebStars]

Hi Peter,
Very good point. However, according to Ruben Kier, who recently authored a book on imaging:

100 Best AP targets

Points out that he strives for "true" colors. He give the example of M13 where there are older and younger stars, the ..older or younger, forgive me, I forget, are white ) old?) and the others yellow (younger?)..and this can only be demonstrated by striving for a clean color translation. And that one gets by calibrating one's filters to a standard of sorts to arrive at natural color.

[FebStars]

Now,on the other hand, as you point out, even Hubble plays with the color to emphasize different aspects of a target's nature. Personally, I am of the opinion that one should look for the Salvatore Dali effect in the Horsehead Nebula above all else:



Tom

[Arthur Dent]

So you're not Arthur Dent after all? But are you at least really an Art?
You will probably scold me for this but I never read that book. In fact, I avoided it like the plague. I have friends who are always quoting it (very obscure references) and seem to have it committed to memory. They all laugh at each other and I dont get it. It drives me insane.

If you sneak a look at my profile...

I think when that dreaded day comes around, I may publicly burn a towel!!!!!!!

HERETIC!

Burn him! Burn him! (Monty Python mis-quote)

So, you're not a hoopy frood then??

Art

[sonny.barile]

Heretic? That puts me in good company. (Historically)

This is me being stoned by the townspeople

If my inexperienced opinion counts for anything: I thought color was used to show non-visual spectrums. If that is the case, mono should be used to represent the visual. .....The photographer may only want to adhere to this if they are doing science. If not, meaning the casual astrophotographer, then it woul dsimply be a subjective question.

Regards

[Alex Post]

As subjective as it might be, first time you take a picture of the M42, there is a striking feature running sharp long edge separating blue and red parts. With my unsophisticated and unmodded DSLR with white balance set to daylight they definitely look blue and red, which makes be believe they are indeed blue and red. But again, I am a simple man

[haytor]

The main reason i switched to mono imaging over colour, is that i got pretty fed up after posting images on various forums, only to be told that the colours were not right, given that most people will say colour is subjective and should be a personal choice, then the above statement seems meaningless.But still that very same statement will be used by those that are colour purists.Kind of reminds me of the BORG, who seek perfection!

As Alex mentioned M42 as an example, there is a difference in what we see in the eyepiece visually compared to what the camera sees and records, i have on the odd occasion, noticed a faded green hue to the nebulosity of M42 in the eyepiece using averted vision under good conditions, but mostly no colour at all.

So am i really seeing a faded green tint to that nebulosity visually, or is that colour caused by the optics or something else in the optical train, is the colour real?

If i am seeing green tints in M42,then why not the reds and blues that show up in most images of this target, are these wavelength colours the eye cannot see?

Its all very confusing to say the least,





Tom.

[flboy]

C'mon Tom, who cares what others think. Just take your images, process them as you like and post away

This is hobby. We do this for fun. We're not NASA scientist and we don't have to be spot-on.

Sometimes over doing the colors adds to the image in a powerful way, ie Tel's skull image(which I've forward to friends & family and got excellent responses. Everyone loved it

So let's take our images, post them here and have some fun.

[haytor]

Hi John,

i take onboard everythingh you say, but Tel posed the question "what is real colour", this is what we are seeking to answer and take advice on, so that our imaging can be as close to real as possible, perhaps though, its like asking "is there life out there", no one seems to have an answer, to be honest i think our question is pointless really, but interesting all the same!

Tom.
BTW, anyone else ever noticed that green hue to the nebulosity of M42 visualy, or is it that i have been drinking too much pea juice

[TonyDralle]

BTW, anyone else ever noticed that green hue to the nebulosity of M42 visualy, or is it that i have been drinking too much pea juice

Hi, Tom,

Yes, I have perceived the green tint to M42, and I believe observing manuals mention it.

I recall taking a piggy-back film exposure of Orion many years ago which showed the tiny image of M42 as red. I attributed it to properties of the film emulsion.

As I've said, I would be thrilled to turn out any of the images presented here. These images have scientific value, but probably less so than those, say, from Hubble, so they might as well be processed to be as eye-appealing as possible, or to display a particular phenomenon by, for example, hightening contrast. Apart from distorting the content of an image, and then presenting it as "truth," I would say anything goes.

As John says, this is a hobby, meant to be fun. Part of that fun should be being allowed to tinker with something to make it more interesting or pretty.

- Tony

[haytor]

Hi Tony,John,

i dont want anyone getting the impression from my posts that i`m not enjoying this great hobby of ours, far from it, i get a great deal of satisfaction from it,even though i dont get out imaging, or observing for that matter, as often as i would like, i often find myself going over old captures and trying to improve on them purly from a learning curve perspective!

However, i think there comes a time in an imagers learning curve, where things can get static, a certain level is reached which i want to push past, understanding more about certain aspects of this hobby helps push through those learning barriers, so its not that i`m no longer enjoying the hobby, i really want to enhance it through further learning and understanding. For me its all part of the course.

Tom.

[Skip]

BTW, anyone else ever noticed that green hue to the nebulosity of M42 visualy, or is it that i have been drinking too much pea juice

Not too much pea juice, Tom. I see the muted greenish tint in M42 as well.

I'm not even sure we can say for sure "what is real color". For example, I might look at a blue-green ball and say it is more green, while you may say it is more blue. Our individual brains most likely perceive colors slightly differently. Of course the wave-lengths can be measured and the scientific answers can be determined. But when we are talking about what pleases us most, it is all a matter of perception and personal taste, IMO. OK, just my 2p worth.

BTW, I have been told by some that I have no taste, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

[haytor]

BTW, anyone else ever noticed that green hue to the nebulosity of M42 visualy, or is it that i have been drinking too much pea juice

Not too much pea juice, Tom. I see the muted greenish tint in M42 as well.

I'm not even sure we can say for sure "what is real color". For example, I might look at a blue-green ball and say it is more green, while you may say it is more blue. Our individual brains most likely perceive colors slightly differently. Of course the wave-lengths can be measured and the scientific answers can be determined. But when we are talking about what pleases us most, it is all a matter of perception and personal taste, IMO. OK, just my 2p worth.

BTW, I have been told by some that I have no taste, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Hi Skip,

thank the lord that you too see that greenish tint, thought i might have to move onto carrot juice or something

Anyways, the more i think on it, and, the more you guy`s reply to an impossible question regarding what is real colour, the more i conclude that just like you guy`s, i should just get on and settle for what pleases me,and, not worry too much about what others may say or who have a different opinion to my own, so dont be surprised therefore if my next posted image comes with blue and white polka dots.

Tom.

[Skip]

Now that would really be artistic, Tom!

[Alex Post]

A real color is not hard to define as applied to astro photos. Take a calibrated camera and measure properties of the photons hitting the sensor. The photons around 700nm is what most people would say is red, etc. The trouble with raw images is that they are not very exciting. By far the biggest issue is the dynamic range. The curves tool in Photoshop is the most used tool for AP processing because it allows to separate minute differences between various parts of the image, exaggerate them. Most times it's not color, it's the ability to control intensity levels of neighboring pixels.