Is this cheating?

[badgerchap]

I'm wondering if people consider it "acceptable" to use features like sharpen in PS, or if this is somehow frowned upon as the image isn't really true after this point? e.g. I just sharpened the following image to good effect (in a before and after stylee). I'm chuffed with the result, but do people think it's acceptable to use tricks like this?

Moon(CR)-2952012-GAS.bmp

Moon(CR2)-2952012-GAS.bmp

[Cornelius Varley]

Nothing wrong there. Cheat away. This is thread showing a before and after wavelets were applied http://stargazerslounge.com/showthread.php?t=187552. Not cheating, just enhancing and extracting the details that are already there.

Peter

[barkis]

You acquired data via your Scope/Camera. there are other elements involved in the capture of that data.

For example bad seeing caused by atmospheric disturbances, which might affect the data captured. Enhancement tools in

Photoshop and other graphics software are there to help correct the distortions. That's the way I see it.

Almost everone in AP use these tools, and many of those tools have been developed by Astrophotographers as plugins for graphics packages. So don't drape yourself in guilt feelings, just be happy they are available:).

Anyway, nasa use them too.

Ron.

[badgerchap]

Cheers Peter, wasn't sure if there was some kind of approval protocol, but you've set my mind at rest!

[badgerchap]

Haha Barkis well if NASA do it then it must be alright

So on a related note then, is there a line one shouldn't cross?

May be a moot point seeing as some people sketch instead of image, but there must be a crossover when processing an image becomes so false that it is more of a draimng than a picture!

[RikM]

My personal 'line' stops just short of grabbing a paint brush tool and adding features that were not captured in the original image. I will happily use every other tool in the box to adjust the contrast, colour, brightness, sharpening, lens distortion, noise reduction, star reduction, combining images in layers you name it. I'm always looking for more tools/techniques to try and improve.

My raw data is generally insufficient and not the best quality, so I have to 'fix it in the mix'. I not after scientific levels of accuracy, I just like the twinkly lights

[badgerchap]

.... I just like the twinkly lights

Dodgy seeing over your way then?

[RikM]

Dodgy seeing over your way then?

Not tonight...cloudy instead

[badgerchap]

I'm actually fairly chuffed, weatherwise. Been beautiful for weeks and as soon as the moon brightens me out of DSO imaging, it all clouds over. Statistically that should mean more clear skies during moonless nights?

Oh! The hope in my voice.....

[northcanadian]

Cheat away:

Even Michaelangelo used pounce patterns as tools to aid his Sistine Chapel masterpiece...lol

Cheers

[James4]

When it comes to processing - the gloves are off!

All is fair in love, war, and image processing ... (well almost)

Sometimes you want to give it enough to completely ruin it - then just back off a tad!

[Photosbykev]

If you shoot in Raw mode then you have to apply a number of processes just to get the image upto a basic level of visual quality. Look at the difference between a Raw image and Jpg image taken at the same time, the Jpg will win hands down because the camera has done the basic editing to the Jpg file for you.

BTW that is not an excuse to use Jpg, Raw is the ONLY way to go if you want to achieve anything.

This is my basic workflow once I've culled all the images that are soft, under-exposed or badly framed http://www.photosbykev.com/wordpress/tips-and-trick/digital-workflow/

[tjensen]

My personal 'line' stops just short of grabbing a paint brush tool and adding features that were not captured in the original image. I will happily use every other tool in the box ....

Yep, as long as you aren't manufacturing data in the image, no problem. Imaging DSOs with high dynamic ranges like M42 require stacking and masks and no one objects.

Have fun!

Cheers