Why do People Colour Nebulaes etc in Post Processing?

[Quatermass]

ding ding round two

Sent from my GT-S5670 using Tapatalk

[AWR]

If you take colour to be the wavelength of light then there is of course a 'correct' colour, even if it is what colour it looks like then most people will see the same thing.

I have to disagree with you here. It is our brain that converts wavelength to colour (via nervous implulses). There is no way to know that the colour I experience when I'm subjected to 580nm for example, is the same colour you experience. We may call it the same thing (yellow) because it is caused by the same light, but that does not mean that yellow looks the same to each of us. How can you describe yellow without describing things that appear yellow (ie emit 580nm)?

A little off topic but following on from my disagreement with the OP. Ignore me or tell me to be quiet if too far off topic.

Andrew

[Pete Presland]

This smacks of the worst kind of trolling but... go on... I'll bite :-)

Ben

its a bit blue ,but i can live with it

[sabana]

Some of the detail in DSO is incredibly faint and low in contrast. If you enhance this faint detail in the original image to make it more visible, or more aesthetically appealing then good for you. That is ethically correct and your perogative as its your image.

If your purpose is to portray a scene as truthful, then it's not OK. If your purpose was to create fiction, or "art", then it is OK. You just have to be up front and tell the viewer what you are doing in either case. I see very little evidence of this truthfulness however. Colouring the image is fine I'm concluding as long as you say waht you did to manipulate the image and not fool beginners into thinking it really is like that.

[umadog]

We're going around in circles here. The point is that all astrophotos (including the B&W ones) are heavily processed. It's a matter of degree not whether or not it takes place. The "colouring-in" comment is inflamatory because it suggests that information that is being added by the photographer. This pretty much never happens. Photographers stack different exposures, alter colour gamuts, use narrow-band filters, the pros use non-visible wavelengths, etc. All of this stuff is then combined into a final image which represents what's actually there.

Another reason why we're going around in circles is because the OP has only hazily defined what is objectionable. Statements about "colouring-in" and "false colour" are very vague. This potentially useful discussion has almost descended into mud-slinging because the OP hasn't provided examples (apart from one non-useful Hubble shot) as to what is considered a "good" or "realistic" astrophoto and what is "unrealistic." We could have been having a positive discussion on image processing techniques. Pity...

[umadog]

Some of this detail is incredibly faint and low contrast. If you enhance this faint detail in the original image to make it more visible, or more aesthetically appealing then good for you. That is ethically correct and your perogative as its your image.

If your purpose is to portray a scene as truthful, then it's not OK. If your purpose was to create fiction, or "art", then it is OK. You just have to be up front and tell the viewer what you are doing in either case. I see very little evidence of this truthfulness however.

I don't agree. It's not unethical and it's not unrealistic. It's not creating "fiction."

Saying we shouldn't represent faint details is bizarre in the extreme. It's like saying that plotting data on a log-scale shouldn't be allowed because it enhances small differences. So we should throw out faint photographic detail because it "isn't realistic"? You'd throw out almost all of solar imaging if this advice were followed. Even a simple Halpha solar shot imediately shows much more contrast than is visible to the eye. Throwing out detail isn't sensible.

There is nothing unethical about stacking different exposures. It brings out details and, in many cases, can actually produce a more realistic image. Unstacked solar images are less realistic. I suspect unstacked images of bright DSOs are the same. It's generally very obvious when a lot of stacking has been done (as with that M42 shot I linked to). Nobody is hiding anything and plenty of photographers state how the images were generated.

It's fine to say you prefer your images less processed. It is not fine, IMHO, to be making inflammatory statements about these images being "fictional" or "unethical." You're creating a narrow and contentious definition of what you consider "true", imposing it on others, and making moral judgements when they fail to live up to it. This is why your post has generated controversy and why you have been accused of being a troll.

[sabana]

I don't care if someone considers me a troll, but nearing 200 posts I very much doubt it. No what I have discovered is that there is a clear dividing line between amateur astrophotography and professional astrophotography. That is one is scientific. The other is art.

[RobH]

Don't feed the Troll

[msinclairinork]

Sabana - Please explain what you REALLY mean by a truthful image. Are you saying it is like what you see through a telescope? Or are you talking about an unprocessed image? Because as stated many times already - neither of which are further from the truth.

Michael

[sabana]

Hi Michael. A truthful image is one that has had no influence upon it. It can be argued that a photograph is not the truth anyway just a representation. But I've seen so many beginners put off from the getgo because the images they see uploaded by others are fraudulent. A bit like hubble or celestron cheapo telescope packaging. Fooling people into thinking that the universe does actually look like that. Who knows what the truth is? But fictionlisation in astrophotography appears to be rife and there is no way of knowing how much post processing someone has done. If its just for art it doesn't matter which has been mentioned numerous times.

[dark knight]

:BangHead:

[umadog]

It's one thing to say you don't like narrow-band or HDR images and it's another to call such work fraudulent, particularly since you admit that a lot of AP is art, which means it should not be judged in this way. You are being rude about other people's work. Furthermore, most AP which has had a lot of work put into it also states very clearly how the image was created. Nobody is hiding anything and it is not appropriate to compare AP to department store telescopes. It is not appropriate and is rude and untrue to say that APers are "fooling" people.

You repeat the same statements again and again without addressing the points people have made. In particular the fact that all AP has been processed, that most of what can be photographed can't be seen visually anyway, and that most processing involves only reasonable operations such as histogram stretching, HDR, and narrow-band. You provide no examples to back up your case apart from one dubious image which happened to be a Hubble shot, not an amateur shot.

The purpose of AP is show us stuff we wouldn't be able to see otherwise. It succeeds in this using a range techniques including composite images and false colour. These approaches allow us to visualise the world in ways that would not otherwise be possible. They do not "make up" information they just find new ways of representing what is already there. That is not fraudulent, it is creative, constructive, thought-provoking and interesting.

[msinclairinork]

hmm...I see now what you are trying to say here. But I truly believe an image with some enhancements IS what's out there, and can even represent it better. I think UMADOG summed that up very well.

It is in no way intended to mislead someone. If you want to know what you can expect to see with your eye and a telescope check out the sketching section, if you want to see what our eyes cannot - check out the DSO imaging section.

Using photoshop just brings out what IS ALREADY THERE, it is not a lie, added, or fabrication, just a trick to countering all the things that work against the photographer from taking one perfect image. An image without these things is more a lie is it not?

Michael

[umadog]

I wish I could find a larger version, but I think this image sums things up very nicely: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5061/5576462288_48c9cb5902.jpg

This is a stunning shot comprising many exposures and a lot of stitching together. It's an HDR shot that highlights the detail of the Orion nebulosity in an exceptional way. Nothing is added, it has just been carefully processed to bring out the very faint regions and show how M42 fits into it. I find it beautiful and enlightening. Is this image what you would call "fraudulent"?

[msinclairinork]

Hi Michael. A truthful image is one that has had no influence upon it. It can be argued that a photograph is not the truth anyway just a representation. But I've seen so many beginners put off from the getgo because the images they see uploaded by others are fraudulent. A bit like hubble or celestron cheapo telescope packaging. Fooling people into thinking that the universe does actually look like that. Who knows what the truth is? But fictionlisation in astrophotography appears to be rife and there is no way of knowing how much post processing someone has done. If its just for art it doesn't matter which has been mentioned numerous times.

Ahh...are you now talking about big colourful pictures of nebulae etc plastered on to the side of a cheap department store telescope?

If so then yes in some way I agree, this is misleading to the customer as they will expect to see such things with there eyes.

But this is when a little research on their behalf goes a long way. They will soon then learn that our eyes are incapable of seeing that colour and detail with any telescope in production. For that you need a camera etc.

Am I getting close?

Michael

[RobH]

Hi Michael. A truthful image is one that has had no influence upon it.

So it's not influenced by the technological parameters of the observing device, the conditions at the time, nor by the individual that observes it?.

It can be argued that a photograph is not the truth anyway just a representation. But I've seen so many beginners put off from the getgo because the images they see uploaded by others are fraudulent

Your statement is offensive and deliberately so, as well as being inaccurate. Please qualify this statement with facts, not opinions.

A bit like hubble or celestron cheapo telescope packaging. Fooling people into thinking that the universe does actually look like that.

How do you know what 'it' looks like?

Do you have magic eyes?

You have consistently avoided any actual discussion, just reiterated your original statements without any actual substance to your argument.

Who knows what the truth is? But fictionlisation in astrophotography appears to be rife and there is no way of knowing how much post processing someone has done

Most people will detail their processing, and, again, how do you know 'fictionalistion' is rife.....you speak from a posiition of complete ignorance....you don't take astrophotos, you certainly know nothing about the processes involved, and you seem to see yourself as having a direct line to a 'higher' art/truth. So where does your reference point come from?

If you don't like something, fair enough...but that's only the 'truth' for you.

[Quatermass]

After spending 4 hours tonight trying to find m101 I will be spending another 2 hours imaging it then tomorrow another 3 hours processing it. After all that Im going to produce about 10 differnt versions of it and pick the one I like the best if thats not realistic enough for you I dont know what is. You cant win this argument Im afraid

Sent from my GT-S5670 using Tapatalk

[RikM]

... I've seen so many beginners put off from the getgo because the images they see uploaded by others are fraudulent...

I take offence at your choice of wording here.

While there are plenty of beginners who expect to see Hubble images with a 60mm Tasco, I and a great many others on this forum do our bit to explain that what a camera can capture is not as limited as what the human eye can see. That does not make the images any less real and they most certainly are not fraudulent.

You'll note from my signature that I regularly post both eyepiece sketches and astrophotos and differentiate between the two. I always suggest beginners should check out the sketching forum to get an idea of what can actually be seen through a telescope.

The whole point of astrophotos is that they show that which cannot be see through the eyepiece.

[Matt 82]

The images that you'll find on here could only be considered fraudulent if the person posting them was trying to pass them off as something that they're not.

The OP is upset that people new to stargazing may be put off when they find out that the sights available to them through their new scope don't match what they see on the side of the box or what they'll find on websites like this one. That's fair enough as it's probably true.

However nobody, certainly not on this site as far as I can see, does claim that the amazing pictures of nebulas or galaxies can be replicated by walking up to a £200 garden telescope and having a quick look. In fact there are countless threads dedicated to exactly what expensive equipment they use to get these images. Most users have this info available in the signatures of every post they make.

If the complaint is that telescope manufacturers/suppliers shouldn't be using misleading pictures to advertise capabilities of telescopes then you'll get no argument from me. It is unfair to tar everyone with that brush though.

[umadog]

The thread has only on this page skirted over the issue of misleading beginner advertisements. The original assertion which fuelled the thread was that people spend "thousands" on imaging equipment then go on to "ruin it all by colouring in like a child does at school." The rest of the OP's posts have been variations on that theme.

[ollypenrice]

The thread has only on this page skirted over the issue of misleading beginner advertisements. The original assertion which fuelled the thread was that people spend "thousands" on imaging equipment then go on to "ruin it all by colouring in like a child does at school." The rest of the OP's posts have been variations on that theme.

...and have subsequently revealed themselves to be fatuous trolling.

The subject is worth talking about but only at a reasonable level.

Olly

[AlbertP]

I don't see the problem to be honest.

If someone is willing to spend hours "perfecting" their picture... Then why shouldn't they?

All of the pictures I have seen here have all been beautiful in 1 way or another. I commend anyone who is willing to post their work on here.

I don't like it when people make narrow minded comments...

[sabana]

Just to reiterate. There are some people on this site who do inform viewers of their technique and what they have done to manipulate the image to whatever degree no matter how small. Then there are some who choose not to. This is fraudulent in the fact that the image is being passed on as factual. Only seasoned astronomers would tell the difference. But beginners could not. Herein lies the fundemental flaw in your argument against my post. I've already stated there are good and bad and the bad know who they are but are ridiculously defensive.

May I recommend that people distinguish within themselves whether they are artists or scientists? Then we may have a proper debate.

[Takahashi]

I've already stated there are good and bad and the bad know who they are but are ridiculously defensive.

Yet again you give no specific examples and provide no proof of this "dishonest" astrophotography by people here, who you have continually referred to as "you know who you are".

May I recommend that people distinguish within themselves whether they are artists or scientists? Then we may have a proper debate.

Might I recommend that you get over yourself? Seriously, you're digging yourself an ever-deeper hole.

[sabana]

There is no hole only a brick wall lol.

If you want beginners to come to this forum and start off with you need, this equipment and that equipment. May I suggest you start off with

1) Learn how to use Photoshop (Or nebulosity et al.) to colour in the pictures. Because thats the weak link in your argument against mine and is indefensible.

Yes as I have stated photoshop is necessary to extract the detail. But some people choose to 'flower' the picture. This as I have stated is unethical as it has now become 'fiction' albeit based on 'fact'. This is ethically okay as long as you state this in the bottom of your image (so not to fool beginners). I can't put it any simpler than that, sorry.