Re: Interesting way to image with a cheap mount

Roland Christen

My point was, if you have poor tracking, the underlying image is not sharp, but soft. So you can remove the stars and replace them with sharp stars, but that doesn't make the underlying image sharp. It just gives the appearance that it's sharp, when in fact the actual object that you wish to image is not.

My next comment was aimed at those who obsess over star roundness and don't actually look at the image sharpness. When you have both, then you might have APOD material.


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher M <mirfak@...>
Sent: Fri, Sep 10, 2021 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Interesting way to image with a cheap mount

While I jest with the image of Marvin the Martian, it does bring up an interesting point:  Are not all of our processed images technically a blend of Art and Science?  Every time w Enhance Colour, Increase Contrast, Image Burn or Image Mask, False Colour assemble, etc etc, we are taking artistic liberties with the source.  True we are trying to bring out subtle details in nebula, for example, but the real source object probably doesn't look like that exactly.  Some of the best images I've seen are those that have been processed by people with an artistic skill.  At what point does an image move from "science" to "art"?  I contend there is not a real "point".  However I think we can agree that something has moved from artistic to ... overprocessed?

Roland Christen

Join to automatically receive all group messages.