What is the point of imaging?

[Brinders]

I was just listening to Damien Peach being interviewed on Saturday Live on radio 4 by the Rev Richard Coles. One question Damien seemed to struggle with was, essentially, what is the point of the undoubted beautiful images he and others produce: do they have scientific value?

Damien said that scientists download his images and make comments on what they think is happening. His less than convincing answer made me wonder - do our images have scientific value? Discuss.

Brinders

[Psychobilly]

If you compare the best images planetary from terrestrial imagers to those form the earlier deep space probes then the advances are truly amazing...

From a more philosophical point of view in the "hobby/obsession" field why do we do anything...?

I guess for most of us it's the challenge and enjoyment of producing our own "images" of these Celestial Gems...

Peter...

[Brinders]

I guess for most of us it's the challenge and enjoyment of producing our own "images" of these Celestial Gems...

Peter...

Yes, Peter, for my part I agree with you, but nevertheless I thought as a topic for discussion it might be worth pursuing as to whether our images have scientific value or not.

Brinders

[Psychobilly]

I guess you would have to "submit" your images somewhere for the wider scientific community to "pick them up" .. although I guess Damien is one of the guys that they would keep and eye on...

Peter...

[MikeD]

I thought as a topic for discussion it might be worth pursuing as to whether our images have scientific value or not.

Yes, If you are imaging a deep space object to take a pretty picture and catch a super nova that no one has seen, that would be of scientific value.

Right place right time, the more of us out there the chances of someone being at the right place at the right time increases.

Mike.

[Merlin66]

Yes they do.....

In terms of nova and supernova discovery...monitoring of variable stars and the better understanding of the mechanisms involved.

Recent planetary images of Jupiter have shown comet impacts which would have been missed without amateurs....

I gave up astrophotography after fifteen years and turned to spectroscopy to get my "hit"

[Moonshane]

I am not an imager but enjoy the many beautiful images produced here and elsewhere. In my novice opinion, most of the images have no scientific value but are extremely beautiful and bordering on spiritual.

Ironically, it is often the case that the ones that have the least aesthetic appeal demonstrate the most scientific value. E.g. comet images like the recent ones of Garradd have been of both types where e.g. a long exposure shot shows the lovely core and coma set against a background of stars and even something like M71. There have also been those which show star trails but track the comet and thus show the motion against the background stars. For me the former is the more beautiful shot but the latter has more scientific value.

As with most aspects of this hobby. there's thankfully room for both and after all, why do we have to choose?

In my other hobby (insect macro photography) some of my worst shots aesthetically have shown some element of behaviour that has more value than a nice portrait but I like both. This seems to stand as a good analogy to AP.

Long may all types continue!

[Polar Bear]

I am primarily a photographer but have no interest in astro imaging myself.

However I do enjoy looking at the images and encouraging those who take and submit images to the forum.

There seems to me to be two processes involved, firstly the objective highly technical (and expensive ) aspect of producing sharp well tracked images and then the subjective interpretation of the data using different colour pallets and much manipulation.

There is no doubting the images are sometimes stunning but the process holds no joy for me but obviously does for others.

So the simple answer as to 'what is the point of imaging' must be because those whose embark on it enjoy it as a technical and artistic exercise.

I am unsure as to its scientific value as no two images of the same subject ever appear the same.

For them to be of use scientifically a specific purpose must be a prerequisite before the image is taken.

Solar imaging is a little different as tangible effects can be infered in real time from the images of sun spots , flares etc...

It is a different case if the images are viewed as educational and if they inspire others to take an interest in Astronomy or Cosmology then they can only be a good thing.

Keep up the good work I say to all who image whilst I stick to terrestrial photography.

Paul

[Brinders]

Yes they do.....

In terms of nova and supernova discovery...monitoring of variable stars and the better understanding of the mechanisms involved.

Recent planetary images of Jupiter have shown comet impacts which would have been missed without amateurs....

I gave up astrophotography after fifteen years and turned to spectroscopy to get my "hit"

I was surprised that Damien didn't make more of the value of amateur deep sky images or such things as comet impacts on Jupiter. I understood that he thought deep sky was the province of cosmologists using the world's largest terrestrial and space telescopes and that planetary science was dominated by robotic space craft and both required huge budgets, but nevertheless with advances in the technology now available to amateurs, many were able to produce the kind of images only professionals could produce once over.

Brinders

[steppenwolf]

I think of deep sky imaging as more art than science - I am primarily interested in producing pretty pictures but once in a while these images have some scientific purpose too like the M51 SN image that I specifically took.

However, I am personally interested in the science behind each object, how it was formed and how it is developing but that is for my own appreciation.

[cgarry]

I think that the final processed DSO images have very little scientific value. However, the raw subs that go to make these images could have immense value if they happen to capture an unknown event such as a new supernova.

Cheers,

Chris

[ollypenrice]

The basic question, 'What is the point in...?' is a curious one. The industrialist and light bulb manufacturer says to the PhD student of thirteenth century Persian poetry, 'What is the point in that?

'Possibly none,' replies the student. What do you do?

'I'm CEO of Supernova Lightbulbs.'

'Ah,' says the student. Now that at least DOES have a purpose.'

'Of course,' replies our practical friend.

'... because without your light bulbs how could I read thirteenth century Persian poetry in winter?'

My pictures are like landscape paintings, but of the night sky - and they are not quite paintings. Not far off sometimes! (I didn't say that!) They are not science and why should they be? Was Constable a botanist? Was Turner an oceanographer? Was Munch a psychiatrist? Was Augustus John a passport photo booth? Of course, I don't mean that I apprapoch their standard but if I used hardly known local painters then you wouldn't know who I was talking about. I'm making a point about what astrophotography is, for people like me.

Frankly, anyone wha looks at a Damian Peach Jupiter image and asks, 'What is the point in that?' should have their head examined. I'm not surprized he was stuck for an answer. The American Constitution begins with a very useful phrase; We hold these truths to be self evident... The value of Damian's images is entirely self evident to any fully wired up human being. It' s all the other things I do that make me wonder why I do them.

Olly

[GJBC]

what if he took another four of his stunning jupiter images and in the forth the astronomy community as a whole saw something unusual. the scientist would then all want to look at it as well. they look at his images now and study them. they do this because they rarely or at least less frequently take these images themsleves as they are now looking deeper into space at diffrent wavelengths etc, so in my eyes the value of the images are three fold

we like what we see as they are quality

the scientist like what they see

and we all use the visual info to give a better understanding of what is happening.

So YES they do have a scientific value well IMHO anyway

[Brinders]

Hi Olly,

I think I perhaps should have entitled the subject, "Does amateur imaging have any scientific value?" as this was the point made to Damien. I chose the title because that was what entered my head as I listened to the broadcast and thought it would make a worthwhile topic for discussion, as it clearly has!

I do think that there is some scientific merit in imaging (supernovas, comets hitting Jupiter, dust storms on Mars, sunspots, solar flares etc) and without doubt aesthetic value.

I am not a very good imager, but I do like being able to produce half decent pics of the planets and get the wow factor when they look something like the photos I remember seeing in astro books of my youth - that for me is the reward. I also enjoy the beautiful images of the deep sky that you and others produce on this forum. Indeed, so good are they that I sometimes wonder if we need Hubble.

I'll carry on making my modest pictures of the night sky and will continue to be in awe of those splendid images you and others produce that I cannot hope to emulate.

Brinders

[ScubaMike]

I wouldn't care if they had scientific value or not.

Producing (and hopefully in time, improving) my images gives me pleasure. That is enough for me.

I don't need recognition, or to contribute to science. This is a hobby, from which I extract pleasure, nothing more.

[Brinders]

I wouldn't care if they had scientific value or not.

Producing (and hopefully in time, improving) my images gives me pleasure. That is enough for me.

I don't need recognition, or to contribute to science. This is a hobby, from which I extract pleasure, nothing more.

Well said, and that's how I feel too!

[Beulah]

Astro Imaging is an art to be perfected - one of the last arts that need considerable patience, time and effort (and money) for that elusive perfect set of data that is a joy to manipulate.

Whether it's a personal goal or scientific, it's the sense of achievement that pervades - as with many hobbies that may seem "pointless" to others.

When I look at the images on this forum, I can appreciate the amount of effort the individual has taken to produce them despite the odds of a frequently unstable atmosphere. There is no need to mention how beautiful they are. A collection of my favourites circulate on my desktop at work to inspire me.

[Luke]

Not having heard the context, if it was to suggest that imaging is pointless, well I have heard people say why bother imaging when you can look at Hubble images. For me it's only as pointless as learning to play guitar. Not pointless at all.

Why play the guitar when you can listen to Hendrix? There is a joy in doing it for yourself and it makes it more a part of you, it changes you and it becomes an important part of you!

I feel very lucky to have found this hobby. If anyone else finds it pointless, each to their own, it's just great to find a hobby that floats your boat!

[Brinders]

Hi Luke,

I think the Reverend Coles was trying to ascertain what scientific value was to be had from amateur images other than their aesthetic value. I thought that Damien seemed hesitant and unsure as to how to answer and I felt (perhaps incorrectly) that his response that scientists look at his, and those of others, and gave comments upon them, a little unconvincing. It then struck me that it would make a good topic for discussion on the forum.

Brinders

[Tim]

People often ask me why I take the astro pics. My usual reply is "Because I can, and because I like them".

I suppose they have a kind of scientific value if the graphical images help bring home to non astronomers the beauty of the universe.

[ollypenrice]

I think this is a great thread. I've said before that I will never again allow the, 'Oh you just take pretty pictures' put-down (for that's what it is) to go unchallenged. I'll repeat my repost; I don't set out to take pretty pictures, I set out to take beautiful and informative pictures. And I repeat that I absolutely don't claim to succeed, only to try!

I really like Luke's point, 'Why play the guitar when you can listen to Hendrix?'

Exactly! There's a difference between doing and spectating. When I'm processing an image I really do have an intense feeling of having my hands on the beauty of nature. I 'see' the subject and manipulate it and feel it and touch it as no amount of Hubble gazing could ever begin to provide.

Tim's point above came in as I was typing and what a good one it is. 'Because I can' is very like Edmund Hillary's great answer to the question, Why did you climb Everest? Because it was there. That's why I'm going to spend forty to sixty hours photopgraphing the Pleiades. And if it needs more it gets more.

Olly

[Brinders]

Thank-you all for your responses. I'm glad I started this thread - it has certainly given us all food for thought.

I don't want to put a downer on Damien's appearance on Saturday Live (if you can appear on radio) as it was actually a very good interview and helped to bring amateur astronomy and what can be achieved to a larger and well informed audience. I had to cringe though when Richard Coles referred to the red spot on Mars but, unfortunately, Damien didn't correct him. Still, it was good to hear from the great planetary imager himself and it brought our hobby some welcome and positive publicity.

One final point about the broadcast, Richard Coles tried to suggest that perhaps Damien was a geek and may have had a difficult time because of that with his peers at school, but Damien was having none of it - Damien said he didn't feel that way at all and that all his family, friends and relatives had supported him in his hobby which, as he said, was done in the dark! Well done Damien.

Brinders

[Earl]

Why climb a mountain?

[ScubaMike]

Astro Imaging is an art to be perfected - one of the last arts that need considerable patience, time and effort (and money) for that elusive perfect set of data that is a joy to manipulate.

Whether it's a personal goal or scientific, it's the sense of achievement that pervades - as with many hobbies that may seem "pointless" to others.

When I look at the images on this forum, I can appreciate the amount of effort the individual has taken to produce them despite the odds of a frequently unstable atmosphere. There is no need to mention how beautiful they are. A collection of my favourites circulate on my desktop at work to inspire me.

On the button!

You have articulated what I struggled to say.

[Stu]

As a slightly different slant on this, a question I would ask is 'Do the processing methods used introduce artifacts in the image which render them un-reliable as scientific evidence' for want of a better word, and 'Are the colour palettes used calibrated in a way which would allow any data to be gathered from the image?'

I totally 'get' the fact that imagers put so much time and effort into producing such wonderful pictures, just for their own sake, although it is not for me personally as I don't have the time, skill or patience!

It just seems that there is so much information being gathered now, it would be a shame if there wasn't a way of collating and using the information for scientific purposes in some way.

Stu