Re: Interesting way to image with a cheap mount

Bill Long

Totally agree. Mounts are the most important piece of the Astrophotography package, as is using them correctly and to their full potential. Similarly good optics that are well collimated, properly thermal managed, and well focused are important as well. The better you manage and use the overall kit, the better your data is. Some people prefer to take shortcuts or the cheap route and just hope to fix it in post. I see this daily when looking through Astrobin submissions as a submitter for IOTD. Out of the roughly 9 pages of images I review per day in my queue, maybe one of two of them meet my bar on a good day. Most days I select none.

From: <> on behalf of Roland Christen via <chris1011@...>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 4:47 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Interesting way to image with a cheap mount
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.