Why do People Colour Nebulaes etc in Post Processing?

[4lefts]

I'd rather have the truth.

what kind of lie is this?

NASA - El Gordo Galaxy Cluster

[SaraG]

NASA? Truth? come on man!

Aren't they mutually exclusive terms? Kind of like "positive" and "discrimination" in the same sentence

[Quatermass]

being colour blind I tend to get comments on my images like ohh its way to green or way to bright

I say its my choice if it looks right to me Im happy if every image was black and white there would be no argument. But I do take your point last years batch of andromedia galaxy images varied in colour a great deal but I think its a subject of choice and prefrence rather the accuracy.

Sent from my GT-S5670 using Tapatalk

[Quatermass]

I like colouring in like a child as well great fun I also enjoy posting my dire efforts my better ones and my bestest ones. And I have had so much help when posting my first efforts I hope others will do the same. Just wish I wasnt colour blind.

Sent from my GT-S5670 using Tapatalk

[dark knight]

I'm an avid fan of astro-photography, I love the skill and technical abilities of our members here, some of the stuff being produced is just stunning, however I must admit to not liking images that use the Hubble Pallet but that's just me and my preference.

Each to their own I say, the main thing is we all enjoy what we do, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[SaraG]

We're engineers, we like to "fiddle" with our "bits"

[foundaplanet]

I don't get it. You spend hours getting an incredible image with expensive photographic images. Then go and ruin it with photoshop. Ok, I'm an analogue photographer using film for my work most of the time. I love black and white and the higher tonal values over colour. I even prefer black and white movies lol. But I don't get why adjusting curves and adding complimentary colours which aren't true to the real thing is necessary. Ok it looks pretty. But if your going to invest thousands of pounds on atrophotography equipment and then ruin it all by colouring in like a child does at school its kinda sucks. This is just another opinion. But I'd rather have the truth.

The truth is life would be very bland if everyone did everything the same way.

[Craig20264]

I don't get it. You spend hours getting an incredible image with expensive photographic images. Then go and ruin it with photoshop. Ok, I'm an analogue photographer using film for my work most of the time. I love black and white and the higher tonal values over colour. I even prefer black and white movies lol. But I don't get why adjusting curves and adding complimentary colours which aren't true to the real thing is necessary. Ok it looks pretty. But if your going to invest thousands of pounds on atrophotography equipment and then ruin it all by colouring in like a child does at school its kinda sucks. This is just another opinion. But I'd rather have the truth.

If you enjoy what you create , well that's great. If others enjoy what you create, well that's even better.

As in art, there are no rights and wrongs in photography of any sort, only differences of opinion.

As for you "having the truth", well who's to say we see the truth up there, I mean most of it could already be gone!

[foundaplanet]

As for you "having the truth", well who's to say we see the truth up there, I mean most of it could already be gone!

Ha, excellent..

[sabana]

Hmmm. I seem to have offended a few folk here. I stated that the images on this site are exceptional or words to that effect. But don't try and kid me please that photoshop wasn't involved to a large degree. The colouring part is subjective true. And the child at school colouring statement was a bit harsh. But like i stated. If your going to pile your cash in on high end equipment. Why oh why lower the bar ?...

NB: I hope the people that do colour use a calibrator for their monitor. That would be an even more henious crime. I've seen some completely out of whack.

[Earl]

You have to process the image to bring out the detail and colour as a CCD behaves very differently to the eye, you have to turn the data into an image more than be provided with an image.

[Jonny]

Why do people desaturate the Lunar images?

The Moon is full of colour, shame to waste it and perpetuate the myth that the moon is colourless and grey.

In fact people go into shock when you tell them the moon has colour, or show them a colour picture so much is the spread of this myth.

I don't see any colour on the moon :|

Anywho, I agree. Astrophotography should never have false colours added. I don't know what a nebulae would look like up close but I'm sure the colours would not be as vivid as is displayed by astrophotographers.

[Nexus 6]

are all images not subjective anyway? who cares what methods are used to show the fantastic material brought to us from the dark side...

[sabana]

My argument against false colouring stands. I respect all the comments in this group. But I feel people who do false colouring are undermining the validity of the image. Almost gimmicky. maybe hubble imagers are at fault here. Using their color palette to grossly overenhance the universe has led many people down that road.

Perhaps people like these false colours as they look prettier on their bedroom wall in a nice print. Or make for better front covers of magazines to get the viewers attention. But black and white images are taken more seriously. And if you don't believe this statement just pop along to any fine art gallery with any merit.

[Kai]

But black and white images are taken more seriously. And if you don't believe this statement just pop along to any fine art gallery with any merit.

I agree van Gough, Rubens , Dali are so overrated for their use of colour

[ianaiken]

Each to their own I guess I quite like NASAs production of bedroom wall posters using the Hubble pallette as I see them for what they are and can understand the concept of visual representation and the reasons as people have already discussed.

[Macavity]

What about folks who seemingly have access to (BBC-funded?) interstellar travel - To get 3-D images of the "Pillars of Creation" etc., so beloved of TV science? Not to mention adding sundry whizzes, whooshes and bangs.

[ScubaMike]

Why do people get so critical about this.

The colour composition is the decision of the imager, no one else.

... you don't like colour,? so what. Should people only produce images that meet your specification?

If someone wants to play with the colour of their image, that's their perogative.

The only real, non-subjective critisism that people can give, is regarding the focus. All else is subjective.

Commenting that you would prefer B&W is fine, but CRITICISING people for "colouring in" their images is rather presumptuous of you.

[Takahashi]

But black and white images are taken more seriously. And if you don't believe this statement just pop along to any fine art gallery with any merit.

So we should deny the colour in the universe because black and white is deemed more meritorious from an artistic standpoint? I doubt I've ever disagreed with something so much as that, and besides, some of the more outlandishly recoloured images ever made have led to us discovering things that were previously unseen, or hidden by certain features only visible in certain wavelengths. Do you fob-off any and all images of the Sun that don't depict it as a searingly bright, featureless ball?

However a person interprets their own images of the night sky is entirely up to them, and while I appreciate that you aren't ordering them not to, saying they are "colouring in like a child does at school" is not only inaccurate, leaves you open to some righteous criticism. Having an opinion is one thing, but reducing the level of work that people put into their treasured images with a barely disguised insult, is uncool. IMO.

[foundaplanet]

My argument against false colouring stands. I respect all the comments in this group. But I feel people who do false colouring are undermining the validity of the image. Almost gimmicky. maybe hubble imagers are at fault here. Using their color palette to grossly overenhance the universe has led many people down that road.

Perhaps people like these false colours as they look prettier on their bedroom wall in a nice print. Or make for better front covers of magazines to get the viewers attention. But black and white images are taken more seriously. And if you don't believe this statement just pop along to any fine art gallery with any merit.

You could try Mr. Barnard in room 12

[msinclairinork]

Sabana - I think you are missing the points made here by some folks. They are saying that when using a one shot colour CCD/CMOS/FILM camera you simply get colour coming through way before photoshop is introduced.

So what do we do then? We just pull out that data that is already there, making for a more detailed picture. We generally don't remove the colour...which would be in processing anyway.

The trick with hubble colours and the like as mentioned before is to show what types of gasses that are out there. These emit colour at certain wave lengths, so it's just a reflection on what we think it should look like.

Unless I'm missing something, I'm sure that's the idea anyway

Michael

[Sp@ce_d]

Hang on a minute.. isn't Black & White processing misrepresenting the world WE live in too!

[ythanpythan]

Dodging and burning of B&W photos is no different to altering curves etc it 's all a form of processing. You're at risk of coming across as an old school 'film' snob I'm afraid. Exactly the same type of debate goes on within the digital camp regarding HDR some love it some hate it, some are just awful at it.

I spend enough time outside in the dark looking at the stars without spending more time in a darkroom so it's digital for me!

Looking forward to seeing some of your shots, mind you does scanning your Serious art form print not count as processing?

[pete_l]

My argument against false colouring stands. I respect all the comments in this group. But I feel people who do false colouring are undermining the validity of the image. Almost gimmicky. maybe hubble imagers are at fault here. Using their color palette to grossly overenhance the universe has led many people down that road.

The use of colour is a tool. If we represented objects that we image just as they were seen, there would be a lot of black images with barely discernable fuzzy grey patches on them floating around the web.

if you look at the biological sciences, they use a lot of different dyes to enhance specimens under the microscope. This is in order to differentiate one part of the sample, with certain properties, from another part. Most astro-images: be they amateurs' or professionals' use colour in the same way - to highlight details and to show contrasts.

Perhaps people like these false colours as they look prettier on their bedroom wall in a nice print. Or make for better front covers of magazines to get the viewers attention. But black and white images are taken more seriously. And if you don't believe this statement just pop along to any fine art gallery with any merit.

Yes. Let's face it. Almost no amateur astronomers who publish their images are doing research work. For a start, the images themselves are not good enough, they're not of research-worthy targets and the conditions they are taken under do not qualify them as publishable (to the imagers: when was the last time you had photometric conditions and have you got the equipment to recognise one? Thought not, I certainly don't - but that doesn't stop me).

We have a hobby that we pursue because it pleases us. We try to do the best imaging we can and we strive to improve ourselves by sharing results and techniques within the community. We create and alter our images in order to bring out the beauty of nature and to make the pictures look attractive, while still keeping the "link" to the source that we used.

Fortunately the hobby-space is large and it can accommodate people with all sorts of interests, skill level, equipment and goals. There is no one "right" way to do things and the key for me at least is that I can learn from others, appreciate their art and maybe produce some satisfactory stuff, myself.

[sabana]

Film snob maybe. Scanning done at a pro lab definately. Old school yes and no. I enjoy both forms.

But heres the thing and I'm not looking for an argument just a useful debate.

The colours you say you are pulling out are most definately innacurate. Yes its ok to enhance. But by playing with the hue and saturation in photoshop all you are doing is waht an interior designer does matching wallpaper to furniture etc etc. Not exactly a science more of an aesthetic view. Pleasing to the eye. Great, wonderful. But did you really go into astrophotography to be a Monet? If so why not just paint the picture in oils in the first place? Again the child at school analogy although strong isn't a lie. Yes its your image and you can do with it what you like. But when I look at the image (and their are plenty in this group who retain their credibility by not colouring). I look for the truth not a glorified enhancement or monstrosity.

Ok without pulling out these colours you may not see anything in the image at all. Not true. You don't have to pull out a colour. You can pull out the tone. Tone and colour BTW are two different things.

Again I'm just putting forward my opinion. Some say yes some say no. But the defensiveness of some people is just as arrogant as what my post may sound like.