Scatter Painting VRS Astrophotography

[sabana]

When I was a child at school we used to do scatter paintings for artwork. You just load up a thick thistled brush and flick the brush over a large piece of paper. Any colour you want. The result was an amazing multicoloured rash of dots sploshes and streaks. You could even call it a work of art and many did .

Now I look at pictures of deep space nebulaes and infinite star patterns and wonder could I fool the astronomy world that this was a photograph done with very high tec deep space imagers. .

The artworld has been fooled many a time with famous forgers of classic painters and impressionists.

So does anyone know if astro photographs have been manufactured in the same way with photoshop or lightroom etc. Maybe you already have to enhance a lack lustre photo. And if so how would the astronomical world know if it was real or fake:confused:. How much post editing is ethically allowed? Yes photostacking and sharpening and false colours enhance the photo. But how far can one go. Its so easy to paint in moons/stars/clouds. And a lot of astronomical magazines do this on their front covers.

Just a thought in my myriad of hypothesis and ganglion.

Oh and to people who ask why? I don't know why anyone would bother.

Then the obvoius answer to that one is because 'its there'.

[JamesM]

The basic difference between faking art and images of say, deep sky objects, is really a question of composition. In art, the view only has to be 'possible' leaving analysis on technique and style to be the arbiter of authenticity and so with it , always the chance that a successful fake can be created. When imaging space, the composition will be very well known and that rigidity doesn't allow for any interpretation of the scene via technique and style, leaving the only variant being colour. In that instance it would be almost impossible to create a new 'painting'. Yes, you could paint a photo realistic painting of an image that already exists and there are many artist that could do this, but you would still the need the original to get away it. I am sure that it is possible to take the raw data of an image of say a galaxy and make it you're own - but if I'm honest, that is what most imagers attempt to do all the time, with the success of the finished image having a lot to do with time, processing knowledge and quality of kit.

James

(...I think I might have to go and have a lie down after that! )

[sabana]

Agreed James. There is a rigidity to the infrastructure of 'known' universe that prevents otherwise interpretations. But what if we go deeper into space. Much Deeper than what has been imaged before. As we know we have only scratched the surface. Now if you photoshop and paint these images whos to know if we haven't photographed them by a freakish bit of luck. Very long exposures/given perfect climactic conditions and .... Scientists like to think they have all the answers maybe there will be doubters. But we have learnt that when it comes to the universe theres so much more to see than waht has been discovered.

[JamesM]

"....what if we go deeper into space" but that's the problem because the limitations of imaging are known and so you would have to go to great lengths to establish the provenance of how the image was taken. Saying it was just a very long exposure, which would be your only possible route to access deep space, would not hold water because one of the parameters of imaging such as tracking, which is already known to be insufficiently accurate enough to sustain that activity. A way around that could be to capture more light which would need less time (tracking) but that would require evidence of a huge scope which would again undermine any deception.

As mentioned before, the problem is not so much putting together an authentic looking image, which is the direction from which I believe you are approaching this from, it will be appeasing its likely audience, namely scientists and imagers, who will attempt to contextualise the probability of what they see rather than just the image itself and it is this approach that will undermine its authenticity due to their knowledge of what is technically possible. A picture that looks out of this world will need to be proven that it is, no matter how good it looks. The most obvious example lies with the many people who claim to have taken images of say UFO's. The discussions may initially centre around imaging experts who can analyse layering and photoshop techniques and who will then attempt to disprove the image by unpicking the processes but the stamp of authenticity doesn't rest with the image, it resides within the picture's provenance and contextual evidence of how, when and where it was produced as a way of calculating its probability. There are some great CGI videos of space craft etc that are incredibly convincing, but in the rush to produce the 'show', the authors forgot the basic underlying question which is not whether the images look real but why was somebody holding a camera filming it all when they were actually in the middle of painting their house?

Ultimately, you may be on to something but not in the direction you might be thinking. So far it has been you or I producing our galactic image. Let's change the authorship to say someone like NASA who clearly has the capability of 'finding' our faked image in the universe (...I won't mention landing on the moon, ooops!) and that this capability extends to not just creating a new image but also of editing one - now you might be on to something!

James

[sabana]

Interesting. So maybe if NASA gave us some pictures of a distant galaxy never seen before we wouldn't know if they came from photoshop or the Hubble? And yes my imagination could most definately believe that one hehe. The scary thing is this sort of power in the wrong hands could panic the world into a mass hysteria. I'm thinking the fake broadcast by the BBC in the 60's(or was it the 50's) that the world was being invaded by Aliens namely 'War of the Worlds'. If they said we have photographic proof that a comet was heading for the earth and due to hit in 2014... well you know the sort of thing.

[DavidOfBanff]

Well if you're as good a painter as I am the painty footprints might give you away.

[todd8137]

ya can spot a fake miles away,of this type i bet some sgl members have done it and wil do it in the future and pass the works of as there own i could mention a few names of people on sgl who have done this and have told me so whemnthey have visited my house its pointless if you ask me

but if you can fake me a Monet namely ,le pont japonas in oils that would be great