Ethics of processing for astroimages?

[Uranium235]

This is a subject I had a think about yesterday too... quite freaky!

But my thoughts were more in regard to the clone tool. Say for instance, you had a picture you were pleased with, but with one obvious dust spot (or colour blob from binning) in a place that wasnt critical to the image (eg: within an area that should be black space). For me, that would be truly annoying becuase it still draws your eye to it. But would it be "cheating" to smooth out something that could be sorted out with proper calibration?

I guess as long as youre just adding black space but not stars or any other object then maybe one or two dabs with the clone brush to tidy up may be acceptable(ish).

However, if the blemish is in the middle of a nebula or galaxy, youre kinda stuffed so its best to have clean optics before you start.

But its not as though cloning is on the same level as autotune in music, youre only working on one tiny spot with clone - whereas autotune would be used to correct an entire piece of work from start to finish - not unless youre deliberately looking for that "robotic Cher" sound. Never been a fan of autotune, and users should be burnt as witches

[Sparrow]

If there were a way to remove diffraction spikes from reflector images I'd be right in there! For sale, Baby Q. Wanted, Tak Epsilon!!!

Olly

Hi Olly - for what it's worth, from what I can remember of the tutorial I saw a while ago (haven't a clue where it was now ) the guy merely showed how to manually remove the diffraction spikes using the clone tool. - Hope this helps.

Uranium's comments on use of the clone tool are quite valid - I'd have no problem removing a hot pixel with it that had slipped through. Ethically this is no different to using darks to remove hot pixels.

This thread has fascinated me since I first read and replied to it - I realise more and more that it's all down to personal preference - I was talking to a non-astro imager the other night - he was surprsied that my images were actually made up from many subs and thought this to be "cheating". I showed him what one sub processed without darks and flats looked like and he very quickly agreed that it was a necessary step to achieving a good image to stack them.

I think the boundaries are a very grey area and it's up to each of us to decide what we find personally acceptable to ourselves.

[SlipperySquid]

Great question! Everyone is different as to what they like but there are a few basic steps that everyone must take to produce images, then it's up to the individual.

I think most things have been covered with the replies here, and for me the majority of images I see are "art" (I have an artist friend that's eager for me to build up a portfolio of images and show them...maybe in ten years or so ) but it's all subjective and at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what it what as long as you enjoy what your are doing.

Matt.

[neil phillips]

As has been noted a great question, and one im very interested in. For me its more art than science. But often, i belive the two actually can go hand in hand. Heres a example, ringing artifacts on a planets edge, artistically a ruining effect, scientifically false. So by removing this artifact, not only is the image artistically nicer. but also is in some way, more like what a planet would really look like close up with the naked eye.

you would not see ringing with the un aided eye. Some may argue, its less science because your removing part of the image. and this is true. But in my opinion, removing the false part. leaving the image looking closer to the un aided eye version, is the lesser of two evils of a image not 100% as science would like it. And being lesser of two evils, in my opinion makes it closer, not further from the truth. which is what science, not art is supposed to be about correct.The two often can go hand in hand. I have a easier time removing false processing flaws. than actually adding things to a image. though of course adding contrast or gamma, or colour, or whatever, is adding of sorts. so the question itself becomes very confusing and conflicting, and dare i say subjective. The best we can hope for, is a image that looks pleasing, and hopefully not to far off a close up unaided eye view

[NickK]

If there were a way to remove diffraction spikes from reflector images I'd be right in there! For sale, Baby Q. Wanted, Tak Epsilon!!!

Olly

Surely going for the dimmer objects using a long focal length (2-4meters) would resolve that

[iwatkins]

Thank you everyone for contributing to this one. Interesting but as I thought it would be.

I.e. Don't try to mislead, don't use other people's data without permission and a credit but otherwise it's all good

Cheers

Ian