What is the point of imaging?

[ollypenrice]

When you transform the histogram of an image I would say that you probably destroy most of its scientific value. But a linear image has little aesthetic interest! It would need to be linear for any photometric purposes. You can do a G2V colour calibration but you'd need to know the specs of the filters to learn anything much from this and the professionals wouldn't find much of use in what I do, I don't think.

On the other hand, I think images can pose questions which may not yet have been answered. For instance, widefield shots of the Orion constellation show the Meissa nebulosity and Barnard's Loop. Both of these structures look, at least, as if they are being impacted by a strong shock wave of some kind coming from the west. I've tried to find discussion of what this might be and failed.

Olly

[Sam]

A couple of years ago someone took an image of Jupiter that showed something different, a dark spot near the top if I remember correctly. This ended up being a very important heads up to the scientific community to then take a closer look. So there's one example of the value of our imaging efforts to the scientific community (not that I could equate my very ordinary images to the very high quality of that particular Jupiter image).

I take images to show them to other people, mainly my kids and any one else who is interested.

[Stu]

That all makes sense. Seems like at very least, they are interesting references for detail changes on planets, and in future may well be useful for checking on changes in shape and size of nebulae.

Jolly nice to look at, regardless :-)

Stu

[onesmallstep]

More to the point, where would professional astronomical research be without the input of amateurs? This includes all pro-am liaison, not just imaging so the original question needs to be seen in this context to make sense. My own answer to this would be yes as amateurs add to the data that can be used by science, even if the value of the data isn't immediately recognised.

Secondly, I haven't actually heard this interview but given that Damien was interviewed by a Reverend was this a loaded question on the part of the Church to set up the doubts about science and scientific value that we are now discussing?

[FraserClarke]

When you transform the histogram of an image I would say that you probably destroy most of its scientific value. But a linear image has little aesthetic interest! It would need to be linear for any photometric purposes. You can do a G2V colour calibration but you'd need to know the specs of the filters to learn anything much from this and the professionals wouldn't find much of use in what I do, I don't think.

That's a pretty good summary! You need linear data in a well understood calibrated system to let you compare it with other observations. The really key factor in making scientific use of amateur images is being in the right place at the right time. Then ANY data is infinitely better than no data!

There are exceptions of course, but in general the way data is taken to make pretty pictures is not the same way you take data for sceintific analysis.

[Brinders]

Secondly, I haven't actually heard this interview but given that Damien was interviewed by a Reverend was this a loaded question on the part of the Church to set up the doubts about science and scientific value that we are now discussing?

I don't think the Rev Richard Coles was intending to load his question in the way that you imply. I listen to the programme regularly on Saturday morning and I have a lot of respect for the reverend who is very even handed and doesn't allow his views (christian or otherwise) to colour a debate. I think he was simply attempting to spark debate and put the point for Damian to answer because I think that many of his audience may wonder if astronomical imaging is nothing more that very nice pictures with, perhaps, little scientific merit created by "geeks" with too much money to spend on very expensive equipment and too much time at their disposal.

Now, I'm being controversial; not necessarily my view, just making the point that those who do not indulge in this wonderful hobby might hold the views I describe.

Brinders

[ScubaMike]

Perhaps the biggest impact on Science of the photographs taken by amateurs is to awaken some interest in the world around us in the minds of the "playstation" generation.

Who knows what Einstein or Hubble is lurking in the wings, waiting something to spark their interest in the cosmos?

[Merlin66]

The "downside" to the scientific imaging is the rigor and discipline required to look at the images and be able to compare them with other data....this takes time and effort...many a nova/ supernova has been missed because the images were never properly investigated.....

[blackparticle]

The "downside" to the scientific imaging is the rigor and discipline required to look at the images and be able to compare them with other data....this takes time and effort...many a nova/ supernova has been missed because the images were never properly investigated.....

heh.. Tell me about it !! This was my contribution to science.. 3 days after the fact.

I wonder how many imagers put their first and last subs into photoshop with the "difference" method to see if they have captured anything new during the course of the image run?

[AJE]

heh.. Tell me about it !! This was my contribution to science.. 3 days after the fact.

I wonder how many imagers put their first and last subs into photoshop with the "difference" method to see if they have captured anything new during the course of the image run?

Never thought of doing that - might do from now on though!

Nice captures of the SN

[shaunster]

I image purely for my own enjoyment, I like producing pretty pictures and im not ashamed to say it

[Merlin66]

As I said to Nick H. a couple of years ago...."lest we forget Nova Musca!!"