M63 - 13/03/2007

OK, here's the "alternative" version:



Looks a bit better then the first image I posted, IMHO. Places more focus on the galaxy - less distraction from spikes on stars.

What's your 2cent?

(FWIW, I must get a UV-IR cut filter to reduce bloating on stars.)

Ok.
I was afraid of that.
Ahem.,....
(let me clear my throat)

So without raising my voice but feeling like I should let me say....
Adding stuff that isn't there in the first place is....
lets put this simply...is
ART.

You cant even add one pixel.
If you do....
Its ART.

In my opinion you can do whatever the hell you want with the
'raw' data....
but the second you begin to put in things that the camera didnt capture
or are not a result of some form of prossesing then you may as well
be just taking a blank page in photoshop and painting away to create
an image.

Look...without (hopefully) sounding pedantic...
I've been involved in art for a long time.....
and it's great we can marry our obsession with the heavens with
our ability to capture all this in 2 & 3 D....BUT...
the SECCOND we add something thats not there,.....
well...you may as well be doing watercolours,,.....

As for using your artistic talents to capture what you see thru the
eye piece.....well I'm sure the frequent visitors to this site have
seen the absolutly wonderfull images shared by Deirdre Kelleghan...

To actually sit at an eyepiece and DRAW what you see....
This forces you to look at EVERY part of the subject....
Too many times you just point at an object...record...then process...

SO WHAT.
yeah it looks great ....
How long did you really look at it through the eyepiece?

''Well you'd see nothing coz its so faint''....really...
grand...but heres the thing....
what are you actually seeing so....

IF YOU HAVE NEVER REALLY SEEN IT?

how can you possably say ''that looks like its bang on ...or
thats fab...look at the detail....!?!?!?''

No human eye has ever seen what those photos have produced!

Lads...on a fianl note,....
especially astrophotographers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Do what you will...
Image away and give us beautyfull approximations of whats out there...
but remember...its all relative.

Ok.
I was afraid of that.
Ahem.,....
(let me clear my throat)

So without raising my voice but feeling like I should let me say....
Adding stuff that isn't there in the first place is....
lets put this simply...is
ART.

I agree completely!

You cant even add one pixel.
If you do....
Its ART.

Correct, but this is where I was making the point. Is adding strings across the front of the corrector plate also ART? i.e something is intentionally added to the image which isn't really there. I'd love to know your view on it.

how can you possably say ''that looks like its bang on ...or
thats fab...look at the detail....!?!?!?''

No human eye has ever seen what those photos have produced!

Good point. Often we often hear that an image is too red or blue or whatever, something we're all a little guilty of I guess. As you say, some of these objects are too faint to be seen. In other cases, it depends on how we have been "conditioned" to perceive it - from looking at Hubble images etc.

Good discussion here.

Cheers,

Wow Michael. Stunning image, that's one of the best images I have seen. Well done mate.

Ok.
I was afraid of that.
Ahem.,....
(let me clear my throat)

So without raising my voice but feeling like I should let me say....
Adding stuff that isn't there in the first place is....
lets put this simply...is
ART.

I agree completely!

Cool.

You cant even add one pixel.
If you do....
Its ART.

Correct, but this is where I was making the point. Is adding strings across the front of the corrector plate also ART? i.e something is intentionally added to the image which isn't really there. I'd love to know your view on it.

Ok...I didn't know that it was actual ''Strings'' physically put across
the plate...it thought it was something 'added' in photoshop....
Ok so to answer your question....
As far as I'm concerned,...
If you put an elephant at the business end of your scope and
you get a certian image....fine...

THAT image is what it is.

Ask yourself this question.....

As an astrophotographer......

WHAT are you really trying to 'capture'

We have all seen the IR or Ha captures of this and that...
sorry...last time i checked I didnt see like that.

So again what are you trying to...Ok not 'capture' ...but portray....

how can you possably say ''that looks like its bang on ...or
thats fab...look at the detail....!?!?!?''

No human eye has ever seen what those photos have produced!

Good point. Often we often hear that an image is too red or blue or whatever, something we're all a little guilty of I guess. As you say, some of these objects are too faint to be seen. In other cases, it depends on how we have been "conditioned" to perceive it - from looking at Hubble images etc.

Good discussion here.

Cheers,

Sorry Mike...my quotes are all over the place..... :oops: