M106 (and friends)

dmcdona wrote: Oh wait, just saw the footy scores.

<Big cheesy grin>

Thanks everyone for the comments, it is certainly nice to be taking some images again. .... lovely clear night tonight and M81/82 is over a slo oven:)

Dave. I think you are right about the greenish hint to some stars. The thing is it dropping the green makes the galaxies all wrong. Some people would advocate isolating the galaxies and adjusting the rest. Easy enough to do, but to me thats crossing the line between imaging and art. Some may disagree and that fine. I generally dont like local enhancements, but thats just me.

DaveGrennan wrote:

dmcdona wrote: Oh wait, just saw the footy scores.

Dave. I think you are right about the greenish hint to some stars. The thing is it dropping the green makes the galaxies all wrong. Some people would advocate isolating the galaxies and adjusting the rest. Easy enough to do, but to me thats crossing the line between imaging and art. Some may disagree and that fine. I generally dont like local enhancements, but thats just me.

Dave astrophotography is art you are totally leaving all the science behind. Every adjustment you make in Photoshop is no different than an artist using his or her brush if you are enhancing an image its art. ( I feel an ear bashing coming on :ermm: )

Agree 100% Dave - it's one thing to make image-wide adjustments but another to isolate smaller portions and enhance/adjust them individually. Though it can help illustrate a point (e.g. brightening/sharpening a faint galaxy to show its postion).

The pedant in me just had to point out the blue/green hue plus the fact that Drenthe was well on-side.

Look forward to M81/82 and Wenger's statement that "I didn't see it"...

Dave

carlobeirnes wrote: ( I feel an ear bashing coming on :ermm: )

You've opened up a can of worms there my friend...

So, to kick off the ear-bashing... I think its hard to give a pecise defining line beyond which a photographic image becomes art. For example, any kind of processing could be considered by some as interfering. But does that include applying cal frames? It's processing the image alright but I don't think too many people would argue that you have strayed into art territory.

Some people purposely add think cross-wires to their refractor to produce diffraction spikes and make what some consider a more pleasing image. Is that straying into art?

Your idea of "an an artist using a brush" may be a good starting point - but that implies changes to parts of an image rather than the whole image. For example, altering the brightness/contrast of an image affects all pixels equally. But brightening a portion of an image is altering selective pixels only. An artist cannot wholesale change every paint blob or charcoal stroke equally.

So, perhaps wholesale changes to all of an image might be considered still this sideof science. Altering a selective part of an image may have strayed into the art world.

Its an interesting discussion point alright but I suspet its a discussion that is endless.

Whatever it is, I heartily congratulate anyone who goes out and images, paints, sketches or just views the night sky and enjoys it. Bonus points for sharing it with others

Dave

carlobeirnes wrote: Dave astrophotography is art you are totally leaving all the science behind. Every adjustment you make in Photoshop is no different than an artist using his or her brush if you are enhancing an image its art. ( I feel an ear bashing coming on :ermm: )

Thats a valid opinion Carl, but I couldnt disagree more. Why not just get a computer to generate the pic from scratch? Why not just paint the picture? I beleive the purpose of astrophotography is to capture the sky as it really is, not what you want it to look like. If you want to be an artist, buy a paintbrush.

But thats just my opinion which (I think) is no more or less valid than any other.

Lads maybe I should have reworded my post better there is a very fine line when it comes to astrophotography especially when it comes down to art/science.

When I process my images I like to pull every pixel out of an image trying make it as pleasing to the eye as possible, which means making very fine adjustments to very large ones. But at the same time keeping it as natural as possible,

I will not add something that is not there. I will however pull out every bit of detail that is in the galaxy and this to me is where the art comes in for me anyway. I’m enhancing the detail that’s in the galaxy nothing more.

Have a look at the video below is it art or science