Astro Imaging Article in the Daily Mail

[johnrt]

Well, I think this has to be the worst written and researched article I have ever read. Reinhold Wittich "admits" he used CCD stack, Pixinsight and Photoshop to process his image (I'm not sure why he has not admit this and what else would he have used??", and somehow managed to take them on a "second hand" telescope. Then a totally unrelated video about a planetary nebula, a photograph of a rig that wasn't even used and a random reference to another imager. Lazy, poor and a real shame, wasted opportunity as this could have been an interesting and informative piece on amateur astro imaging.

Have a cringe for yourself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2306742/Dazzling-pictures-Orion-Nebula-captured-garden-Germany.html

[jimmyjamjoejoe]

*groan*

[JamesF]

Nice obsy though

James

[pete_l]

I think the "admits" part refers to processing the image at all, rather than being about the tools used. Otherwise DM readers might expect to be able to eyeball this sight themselves.

Don't be too hard on the DM. The author of this article appears to be their "science lady", judging by her other pieces. They are all written down to a similar level, for their readership. It's more of a surprise that the article didn't contain snide comments about what the photographer's wife was wearing at the time.

[JamesF]

I think the "admits" part refers to processing the image at all, rather than being about the tools used. Otherwise DM readers might expect to be able to eyeball this sight themselves.

It's a subtlety of the language though, isn't it? There's a different nuance to "He processed the image using X, Y and Z to show detail not visible otherwise" compared with "He admits to processing the image with X, Y and Z". The first suggests that it's something any astrophotographer might do, whereas the second suggests that he's admitting to some sort of deceit.

To my way of reading, anyhow Perhaps the Daily Fail doesn't go in for such particular use of language as long as you know which D-listers are in rehab this week.

James

[ollypenrice]

Pathetic. The implication of the article is that capturing M42 is rare and difficult. The 'admits' is utterly fatuous. Journalistic standards vary but let's hope they don't get too much worse than this. The Sunday times carried a nice piece about my place adding that excellent meals are available at price 'x.' Well, I think they are (as I would!) but the author got all his information from me without visiting! (Also interesting, as an aside, is that the article led to prcisely no new bookings whatever. When the Western Scunthorpe Pig Breeder's Gazette contact me offering me a small boxed ad for £100 I have to smile...)

Very differently, the Guardian's Ed Ewing visited me, took copious notes and wrote an absolutely dead accurate account of his visit. An extremely nice and amiable chap but, by gad, a professional.

Olly

[Knight of Clear Skies]

The quality of science reporting is a bit of a bugbear for me, unfortunately it's mostly carried out by journalists who know a little about science rather than scientists who have some grounding in journalism. Some latitude should be given, as it's very difficult to write reports which aren't subtly misleading. However, in the case of the Daily Mail, they seem to have delegated the task to a work-experience student with rudimentary writing skills.

Mr Wittich is not the first astrophotographer to capture the nebula from his back garden – mathematician Mark Shelley, from Sidcup in Kent, has also managed to capture stunning images of it from his garden.

Good to hear that we're keeping up with the Germans in taking stunning images of the Orion nebula from back gardens - Mr Mark Shelley of Sidcup in Kent, we applaud your patriotic efforts and note that you admit nothing.

(The sheer clumsiness of that sentence also annoys me - we really don't need to hear about captures and gardens twice - and I'm generally forgiving of writing style. It's an indication of the time and respect given to the subject.)

[johnrt]

Good to hear that we're keeping up with the Germans in taking stunning images of the Orion nebula from back gardens - Mr Mark Shelley of Sidcup in Kent, we applaud your patriotic efforts and note that you admit nothing.

And By George why should he?!?!?!? I'll wager he charges out to his back garden with a pint of best in one hand and his telescope in the other, throws it down like an Englishman and just lets it "soak up" as much light as possible. None of this photoshop business over here dear boy.

Well that's how the Daily Mail would like to see it.

The only thing I find more depressing than this article is some of the comments on it written below, newspaper comments sections are dark and murky places where only the stoutly prepared should dare venture.

[Stuck in a field somewhere]

According to EB in Milton Keynes, I shouldn't be able to see anything because of all the light pollution. Never realised I was imagining everything that I see. Worrying.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I was a bit puzzled by the "Mark Shelly has also imaged the Orion Nebula" line, so I dug a little; he gets a mention because the Daily Mail previously ran an article featuring his images. I can only assume this is what passes for due diligence at said paper - searching their own website rather than, say, the actual internet. That's a new low for internet journalism.

Anyway, that's a fantastic image. Here's the original article the Daily Mail piece was cribbed from.

[DaveS]

About par for the Wail I should think .

[Macavity]

I was the (repeated) concept of a... release of gases, that slightly unnerved.

Albeit Hydrogen and oxygen? (No one strike a match, whatever).

[E621Keith]

You can't expect too much from Daily Mail. Tomorrow's article will be "Astrophotography cures/causes cancer (delete as appropriate)"

[Astro_Baby]

Ummmm its the Daily Mail...facts are irrelevant to them they just get in the way

[Earl]

Oh Noes !! Second hand equipment, can only good images come from new gear..... Daily Fail, not good for bog roll either tbh.

[jonathan]

When you look at his set up in his shed with removable roof, it does look rather expensive and intricate. I should hope that he can image the Orion nebula with all of that kit, the colouring seems to be just by the by that any moderately talented user of Photoshop could do. The journalist didn't mention how much the kit cost, how much Photoshop cost, how many hours of exposure was taken... in fact, no details at all; why, it's almost as if they've just found a few pictures on the internet and made the rest up!

[kirkster501]

I Can't see the problem with the article personally. It's a newspaper article and of course they are going to omit some of the technical facts with which we are so familiar. That's the case with any generalist article in a newspaper.

Anything that might inspire people to have a go at this is surely a good thing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[emadmoussa]

What?!!

Don't most of us here can achieve same or better results?!! Ignorance really is a bliss.

I like the observatory and the kit though.

One thing though, with deep sky objects I try to keep the colors as close to what I see as possible. Sometimes by looking at other people's ''very colourful'' images I start to wonder if we're actually stepping away from reality into pop art.

[DaveS]

Well, if you make the colours correspond to what you can see visually all your photos would be grey, with a hint of blue-green if you're lucky.

Though the colours in his pic do look OTT.

[emadmoussa]

Well, if you make the colours correspond to what you can see visually all your photos would be grey, with a hint of blue-green if you're lucky.

Though the colours in his pic do look OTT.

They're pretty exaggerated I'd say..

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I Can't see the problem with the article personally....

Anything that might inspire people to have a go at this is surely a good thing?

As written, it's likely to have the opposite effect. Imaging the Orion Nebula is so difficult that only two amateurs have managed it, and one of them had to cheat by using Photoshop.

It's just an example of a far wider problem. We live in a society which is built on science and engineering - just consider the infrastructure that is in place and the number of events that must happen correctly merely to support the discussion we are having here. Yet, science reporting is often treated as a second class citizen. Journalism is only useful if performed to a certain standard, you are defending the indefensible here I'm afraid.

Yes, in isolation that article does no real harm, but you have to consider the aggregated effect. What happens when such shoddy reporting skills are applied to another branch of science, health and medicine? Well, you get nonsense such as the MMR scandal, and as a result people die or suffer brain injury.