"True" astrophotos [was: Great astromart post...]

Paul Sterngold (psterngold@No-Spam)
Mon, 24 Jan 1999 15:09:35 -0800 (PST)

I don't think any film or electronic image truly represents "reality". Our
eyes don't respond to all wavelengths with the same sensitivity. Film
certainly doesn't. CCDs don't. Long exposure astrophotos show much more
than our eyes can ever see, especially color. Are these "manipulated"?
Unreal? Deceptive? Many of the best, classic Hubble images have either
false or greatly enhanced color.

What about negative stacking? Dodging and/or burning in? Are none of these
acceptable? If not, then you'll never see a photo of a galaxy or bright
nebula with the detail maintained in the core as well as the wispy arms.

I find that my constellation photos show *less* color in the bright stars
than does my naked eye. This is one reason why Fujii and others use
diffusion. The bright stars tend to "burn in" the film to blank white, and
their color is lost. Diffusion simply spreads their light enough so that
you get a hint of color surrounding the white core. IMO, a very pleasing,
very natural effect.

Paul Sterngold

--- RAnder3127@No-Spam wrote:
> In a message dated 1/23/00 5:04:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> psterngold@No-Spam writes:
>
> They may look nice, but I dislike it when people "manipulate" the look
> of astrophotos. I suppose if you're going for an artsy look, you can
> do it, but I prefer true detail and especially colour when it comes to
> astrophotos. Lets hope manipulated photos or electronic images
> don't find their way into archives purporting to give an accurate record
> of an astronomical object.
> -Rich
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


The Astronomy Connection -- Mailing List Archives