Do pics always need to be perfect?

[beamer3.6m]

I just thought I would raise a kinda poll:

Do you think astrophotography pictures need to be either:

a) As close to how the the actual object looks as possible.

Taken and processed for to your personal taste only.

I appreciate the answer is likely to be a combination of the two but I thought about this after I posted a picture recently and then processed. I like the processing which had left the bank ground sky looking smooth but others preferred the background to be little more grainy and natural looking.

It is not a criticism of any comments made but I just thought I would pose the question to see how poeple go about getting their images.

I personally take them and process until I am happy with them personally and if it does not look quite like the actual object then I am not too concerned, although I do aim to get the 'proper' look originally if that makes any sense at all.

[Milamber]

Depends if you are after Art or Science I guess. If the latter then you are going to have to document precisely *every* stage of the process - from capture right through to final presentation. If the former, then just click and go... I'm for the former

Arthur

[Ant]

I'm with B myself.

One of the biggest problems IMO is that everyone has a different monitor, whcih displays stuff differently. I take an image get it so that it looks good then email it to someone at work and on there screen it looks pants.

I always take images for myself.

Ant

[Cloudwatcher]

I'm with B myself.

One of the biggest problems IMO is that everyone has a different monitor, whcih displays stuff differently. I take an image get it so that it looks good then email it to someone at work and on there screen it looks pants.

I always take images for myself.

Ant

My thoughts exactly.

May sound a bit selfish but any images I might take are not going to be of scientific importance,just a record of something I found to be of interest or beauty at that time.

CW

PS Anyway,my images are usually pants regardless of the monitor they appear on!

[CELESCOPE]

yup ,agree with Ant , the images i take are to give me the buzz, that excites and pleases one,s own progress in achieving an every increasing standard.

But it is also nice to get feedback from an image posted , i think construction comments are useful, but we cant always keep everyone happy ,as of course ppl have different views on what an object should look like , for instance colour etc , and as Ant just said , the monitors vary so much ,

For one thing i dont have internet access in my warm room ,the images i produce there are by far better quality than the ones i post , this has always been a problem for me ,why!! i dont know, maybe i should set it up to process and upload from there .

Rog

[steppenwolf]

I take my images purely for my own pleasure and process them to get a pleasing picture. The only caveat to this is that if it is not crystal clear what the overall tone of the image should be, I have a quick look on the internet for similar images and if the tone is blue, I go blue if it is green I go green and so on. I'd like to think that my images have some 'scientific value' but in truth they are just pretty pictures!

I often debate what the 'correct appearance' of an object is anyway - taken to it's extreme, all our images should be grey and fuzzy!

[Ant]

all our images should be grey and fuzzy!

Most of mine are

[centroid]

Fo me, it has to be (a), hence I don't add 'artistic' diffraction spikes to my images, and I'm not keen on seeing 'false colour' added to mono images.

Dave

[CELESCOPE]

:insects1: :whip2:yea but how do u know the colour we get is right Dave , ((starting a valid discussion)) hehehehhe .

Rog

master of false colour

[Kai]

Tbh i post images for critisism and advice on Sgl

I have no idea what other people "see" when they look at my images because of different monitors.

All i need is pointers to how i progress and i hope that i can pass that advice on to people who need it.

Every image i have shown to work collegues and friends the response has been "wow" good or bad.

[barkis]

I guess most posters of images, would prefer them to have an aesthetic look. Most of the main imagers on SGL have a propensity towards capturing SGLPOTW award, and perhaps maybe a higher accolade such as an inclusion in one of the Astronomy magazines.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in this at all. In fact, It is a desirable form of competition, because it leads to attempts at constant improvement. It's like being on the golf course, if you don't have the competitive element, you may as well just go for the walk.

Not everyone succeeds, but the main thing is the improvements that are gained through trying, not winning the prizes.

All astronomical images have some scientific value. Good ones, as well as the not so good ones. IMHO.

Ron.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

I go for the pretty picture if I can. Other times I'll post something quite raw with a question attached, but mostly the pretties.

I don't like the false monochrome images as I don't usually see red light as a greyscale, so if I do a red filtered image (Ha for example), I tend to make it red.

Some of the DSO thingys that I've borrowed of NASA etc. have the colours moved around so the R,G,B is actually IR, R, G to allow for the red shift don't you know.

Kaptain Klevtsov

[centroid]

:insects1: :whip2:yea but how do u know the colour we get is right Dave , ((starting a valid discussion)) hehehehhe .

Rog

master of false colour

I guess the answer to that Rog, is that we don't

However, very few DSO's are of a single colour, the professional images show us that there are often many subtle colour variations.

'false colour' added to a mono image produces an all over single colour/shade.

The 'bottom line' is, in whatever way we like to see our images displayed, if we are happy with the result, artistic licence or not, then that's all that matters really.

Dave