Cheating with Haydes

[neil groves]

I took this 32 second shot of Haydes wich I am actually delighted with, since it was shot with a non Newtonian lens, I was lest with round stars so I added some diffraction spikes in photoshop, I stretched the image as far as I could without introducing unwanted noise and I can clearly see I need to add more flat subs, my question is how far are we allowed to go before it is considered cheating, I mean adding stuff that isn't in the original image is cheating right? as with the diffraction spikes? I have seen images where the stars in the view range from yellow to blue obviously not real colours so where do we need to draw the line?

Canon 5D

Canon 70 - 200L @ 200mm

32 seconds

f/4

iso 800

lights 10 x 3.2 seconds

darks 5

flats 10

Neil.

[Robbo AR]

I can't speak for anyone else and as a newbie I only have a couple of ok pictures under my belt.
I'd draw the line at the point the photo looks artificial. Part of the attraction (for me) is that I've taken a photo that I can show my friends of a subject that very few of them will see for themselves. I want the image to represent something that's real and not something I've made up.
For instance I love star spikes if they look real, I have a Newt so it occasionally gives me spikes and I love it when it does - but I doubt I'd add them on because (in my opinion) I'm adding something to the picture that wasn't there , rather than teasing out the details that were.

I think it's really up to the person processing the photo - we all have different tastes

[Ags]

Star color in pics usually is real :-) The challenge with stars is they overexposed easily, ending up looking white. But with delicate shooting and delicate processing, the star colors can be retained. In narrowband images, the stars have strong but completely unreal colors, as the pics are false color of course.

[Langy]

The first thing is if its a record shot then you try and get it as accurate as possible.

Now if it's a pictorial shot then the sky really is the limit. When you take photos you should be asking yourself if it's for yourself, a judge or professional use like advertising magazine cover etc. Why? These are the three styles of any photograph taken, so you have a specific audience to please and they all have their own rules with the exception of the first as you only do what you are happy with.

As to your spikes, in the thumbnail image it doesn't quite look right and when you look at the larger size image they are showing as false. The lines are all very equal on each star as in that the same brightness and width are all the way through the line. In my opinion they need to fade out towards the end.

When I do actually capture some nice wide star shots I intend to use those to place in other images to create pictorial images.

So the answer is quite simple to me, if it's not a record shot then you can do anything you like with the image.

[Ags]

To get proppa diffraction spikes...

1. Stop your lens down slightly... mega!!!!!

or

2. Blu-tack a cross of string across the front of your lens hood. Instant newtonian :-)

[lensman57]

Hi Neil,

You are really getting on now and that is a nice image but your processing has really robbed the image from any blue. Go back and check your steps to see where you can improve things, there is also a very hot spot in the middle of the image which is sort of brown greenish colour, your flats are not working so need to learn how to take good flats, I have tried to correct as much as I can with a small jpeg and your capture could be a lot better than my humble effort if you get the calibration right and process the right way and really well done BTW.

Regards,

A.G

[neil groves]

_{ok thanks guys, some very good advice here, I am going to go back and play with this as I can see great improvements already in the version above...}

_{thanks all}

_Neil.

[neil groves]

for some reason it didn't upload correctly the first time and much information was missing, I also tweaked it but since i have already flattened the file i can't do anything about the star spikes which i agree do look fake, i did however manage to get the nasty red noise down to a better level.

I guess this is the best i am going to get with 32 secs of exposure, next challenge is to lengthen my exposure time.

Neil.

[neil groves]

Hi Neil,

You are really getting on now and that is a nice image but your processing has really robbed the image from any blue. Go back and check your steps to see where you can improve things, there is also a very hot spot in the middle of the image which is sort of brown greenish colour, your flats are not working so need to learn how to take good flats, I have tried to correct as much as I can with a small jpeg and your capture could be a lot better than my humble effort if you get the calibration right and process the right way and really well done BTW.

Regards,

A.G

I just had to come back to this.....I notice you have introduced some blue hue to some of the brighter stars in the cluster, did you do this with a global adjustment or by attacking the stars individually, I'd love to get the hang of this, it looks really neat?

Neil.

[ollypenrice]

For bright star clusters you don't need over-long exposures because the star colour will start to burn out.

As said above, the star colours seen in expertly taken images are indeed perfectly real. People go to a lot of trouble to ensure that this is so. Cruise the night sky with binoculars, or just naked eye, and you'll see considerable variation in colour.

Olly

[neil groves]

Yes Olly I am trying to capture these superb colours in my images, how do you go about capturing with short exposures? that means you'll only ever get the brightest stars in the image right?

Neil.

[leemanley]

check out Albireo for real star colours ! gorgeous blue and yellow, easily captured with in a few 30 sec subs