Why do People Colour Nebulaes etc in Post Processing?

[daz]

So unless we give an exact minute-by-minute, blow-by-blow account of how we acquired and processed the image, we are being fraudulent??

Ridiculous.

[Adrian]

OK, why not?

Sabana - you have posted a provocative premise which seems to boil down to "I don't like it so no-one should do it".

You have insulted the imagers on this site (& elsewhere) by calling their work fraudulent. Those imagers have given the methods that the colours are obtained as accurately as possible (RGB) and why they may be presented in different colours (UV?, IR?). You have provided no examples useful to the discussion.

You are closed to these arguments and simply reiterate your original opinion over and over with no substance or consistent reasoning.

Have you considered CloudyNights

[daz]

Have you considered CloudyNights

[AlbertP]

Fraudulent is a bit of a harsh word to use.

If someone puts a UFO on their photo and claims that it is 100% true, then I would be inclined to agree with you.

However, as you are using it as a defence against people adding colours to their photos I cannot really justify that word.

I'm new to astronomy myself, and the pictures I have seen (whether edited or not) have only increased my enthusiasm in astronomy (to the point where my Wife felt compelled to buy me a telescope for Christmas). You could say that these pictures were the catalyst for me taking up astronomy as a hobby, something that I will always be thankful for.

[sabana]

But they are not always what they seem Albert. And I'd rather know from the beginning if Photoshop has manipulated the image. Wouldn't you?

There is some degree of Artisitic License. But to post images that are meant to be factual and attempt to pass them off as that is unfair to the beginner. That is fraud as you will be investing money into something hoping to get the same results. What the dirty secret is is that many many hours have been spent in front of photoshop. Again some people are genuine and these are the ones you should be targetting.

[Macavity]

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

Phew, that lets me out then. LOL. But, these days, even neutrality on any subject, can brand you as: "in league with the enemy"? Debate is fine, provided it exceeds the idea of logging on to a forum and gratuitously "stirring up" the residents. I guess I will still be tempted to watch the "Wunders of Staaaar Gazing"... but turned OFF by Black & White thinkers.

[daz]

Can you clearly explain what you mean by factual, please. And can you clearly show some examples of where you think this fraudulent behaviour is occurring?

[msinclairinork]

What are you trying to say here? That an image is not what a beginner will expect to see with ".........." PLEASE FILL IN THE BLANK.

Michael

[RogerTheDodger]

"In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception for personal gain or to damage another individual"

You are claiming people people on this forum are committing fraud? If so, look up the meaning of "libel" as you are on rocky ground here.

[lukebl]

I know. Let's ONLY post images which show what it looks like to the unaided eye. Here's my one of the Orion nebula. Nice.

[AlbertP]

But they are not always what they seem Albert. And I'd rather know from the beginning if Photoshop has manipulated the image. Wouldn't you?

There is some degree of Artisitic License. But to post images that are meant to be factual and attempt to pass them off as that is unfair to the beginner. That is fraud as you will be investing money into something hoping to get the same results. What the dirty secret is is that many many hours have been spent in front of photoshop. Again some people are genuine and these are the ones you should be targetting.

Pictures that are posted here are from people whom have taken up astronomy as a hobby and not as some kind of marketing scheme to encourage people to purchase any particular equipment.

I have not seen anyone post a picture along with any guarantee that you will get the same image if you used X equipment (please correct me if I am wrong).

I look at the pictures for personal enjoyment. I find them all amazing in one way or another. I wouldn't hold anything against someone who has edited their picture to improve it. If I like it, then I like it... If I don't... There will be someone else that will.

I still stand by my stance that using the word "fraud" in your arguement is defamatory.

[Spikey]

Is it me or have the trolls woken up recently ?

[RobH]

Morning all....so this nonsense is still continuing

I think this thread has run its course.

The OP is being provocative and not actually taking part in a reasoned discussion, which is a shame as everyone else is.

The thread is now closed.