Unfortunately we have many people misrepresenting their images on the internet,
I think we're getting far away from what I wrote originally. The issue is that you do your best to get a nice looking image using tricks like I mentioned and disclosing what you did to achieve the best results possible with limited equipment. And that's what the imager did, so no problem with that.
Where the problem comes is that someone else (not the author of the image) points to that image and proclaims that the equipment works just as good as so-called "premium" stuff, so all the people who buy premium stuff are wasting their money.
From: Christopher M <mirfak@...>
Sent: Sat, Sep 11, 2021 10:23 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Interesting way to image with a cheap mount
I was thinking along the lines that, taking the "artistic license" to an extreme, one can just paint a picture of a space image with paint or software. I do not disagree with Mr Christen or others. I consider it misrepresentation to say a heavily modified image is a true photograph when technically it is more "art". The method Mr Christen describes reminds me of nightscapes where tracked images of stars are superimposed upon still images of landscape. While some will try hard to produce a final image representing what they saw or felt at that location, others will do the equivalent of pasting pictures of Marvin on a Mars landscape. I believe I fully understand how Mr Christen and others, myself included, are irked by someone saying "This is an actual photograph" when it isn't. Unfortunately we have many people misrepresenting their images on the internet, so Kudos to people like Mr Long, Mr Christen and all who review for quality and honesty. My own teacher has been painfully honest with my imaging attempts to date. Garbage in => garbage out