disappointing astro books

[mcolbert]

Hugh Hi, interesting how we identify key terms based on our backgrounds.  For me it was the word inspiration that set me thinking and hence responding.  

So, you are after the theoretical basis...  I checked a couple of courses at local universities and other than using Howell's work, they also recommend

Digital SLR Astrophotography, Covington, M. 2007, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), ISBN97805217008 (pb).  Now, not having a copy I cannot say that it 

will help or not re the theoretical base, but I will check with a couple of academics on Monday our time.  There's another Swiss photographer I'll chase up - he's written a number of texts and several of his works do 'look' at post processing.  I'll let you know what responses I receive.  Regards

michael

[hughgilhespie]

Hi Michael,

I have a copy of Michael Covington's Digital SLR Astrophotography. It is a perfectly good introductory text and unlike many books at this level it does include a whole chapter on Digital Imaging Principles. However, that chapter is 13 pages long and does not contain the meat I am after. In fairness, there is also a very helpful paragraph at the end of the image processing section entitled Where to Learn More. This does recommend several other books. I have to admit I have only just spotted this section so perhaps I have found my answer!

Regards, Hugh

[ollypenrice]

Let's hope that some of the tutorial authors are reading this thread.

I would never teach anything by rote. It's ineffective for the student and tedious for the teacher. The interesting part of teaching anything is working out how to do it. 

Stretching the histogram is a good case in point. I always begin with what you're doing when you apply a Curve. (1, Increasing the brightness of the faint data by a greater amount than you increase the brightness of the bright data to render them visible at all. 2 Expanding the range of brightnesses available primarily to the faint data so as to allow more differentiation.) To make this clear you need to identify where on the curve a particular part of the image falls. (Stars at the top, obscuring dust at the bottom.) It's easy to demonstrate this in Ps. At this stage I would also discuss the fact that our eyes and ears perform such data manipulation without our being aware of it. Strong signal is constrained and faint signal favoured on a log scale by the brain. So, in a sense, we are simply extending in Ps what is natural to our brains anyway. Which brings us naturally to 'cheating.' Is this cheating? My argument that it's not would centre on the fact that no negative Curves are applied. A negative Curve would make faint 'object x,' found to dimmer than 'object y' by the camera, brighter than object y. That is not a proper use of Curves. We would next discuss the shape of a particular Curve and it's effect on the image. Thence how to combine two different Curves by layer blending.

The thing is that at no point would I teach from any starting point other than first principle. I used to be a motorcyle instructor, part time, and it was the same in that field. I wouldn't let anyone let in a clutch until they knew what a clutch was. (Not how to mend one, not how they are engineered, just what they are and why the characteristics of an IC engine require them.) Or why you use about 70% front brake and 30% rear. (Demonstrating weight transfer is easy.)

Some students react against this and just want rote. They never get it from me. If I leave them only with a few rote gestures I have not taught them the principles from which they can develop a style of their own. 

Olly

[mcolbert]

Olly are there any texts that you could suggest for Hugh?

michael

[ollypenrice]

Olly are there any texts that you could suggest for Hugh?

michael

Not that I know of. Lessons From the Masters is very good but it's aimed at established imagers - or that's my feeling. There are good video courses though. Warren Keller and Adam Block know what they're doing.

Olly

[r3i]

Olly are there any texts that you could suggest for Hugh?

michael

Not that I know of. Lessons From the Masters is very good but it's aimed at established imagers - or that's my feeling.

Olly

Agree about Lessons From the Masters.  How about the Deep Sky Imaging Primer?  Very readable book. Not 100% sure it is exactly what Hugh is after as it doesn't just concentrate on post processing but those parts that do I found pretty informative.

[Macavity]

I find the O'Meara books rather useful, but do see how his style could irritate.

But the main problem I have is the truly *woeful* quality of binding. These are

not cheap books, but a volume literally fell in half on recent (careful) opening!

One of the others is heading in the same way... Shame on Cambrige Press?

As a slightly off-topic [vaguely tongue in cheek] rant: I love (hate?) object lists!

I can forgive the bizarre ordering of Messier (he was working for himself) but,

notwithstanding the preeminence of Sir Patrick, WHY order the Caldwells so? 

Me? I make my own "documentation" these days... Ordered by Right Ascension,

with options to SORT by attributes such object type, size etc. And not merely a

narcissistic thing -- With limited observing "gaps" (between houses, hedges etc.)

and naff weather, I need to plan my (even rapid-fire video) imaging sessions...

I like my (three!) SPM/Springer "Practical Astronomy" Books... Massey & Quirk's

(great!) Video Astronomy; Harrison's (Spectroscopy) & Kier's "Imaging Targets"!

But I find the sheer *number* of the series (on rather similar topics?) daunting...

How is an aspiring Astronomer - Or even an "advancing" one to chose which?

P.S. Give me a good book over a chalk & talk lecture anytime though!

But most "knowledge", that I need, seems to come from the Web now? 

I'm indeed grateful to "unpublished" (on paper!) Amateur Astronomers.

[r3i]

I like my (three!) SPM/Springer "Practical Astronomy" Books... Massey & Quirk's

(great!) Video Astronomy; Harrison's (Spectroscopy) & Kier's "Imaging Targets"!

But I find the sheer *number* of the series (on rather similar topics?) daunting...

How is an aspiring Astronomer - Or even an "advancing" one to chose which?

I think the sheer number of titles in that series is the root of the problem, they seem to be going for quantity rather than quality and churning them out like a sausage machine.  Agree with you that Kier's "Imaging Targets" is one of the 'good uns'.  Haven't read the other two so can't comment on those.

[Paul73]

I'll add another one into the mix.

Uranometria (old edition)

I ordered (used from different sources) Volume 1 and Volume 2.

2 is the current edition. 1 is from the early '90s.

2 is a masterpiece of mapping and logical layout. 1 is a complete mess.

Note. You have to buy volume 3 as well to get data on the tens of thousands of mapped objects.

Paul

[Cpaulo]

While not really an astronomy book, A Brief History of Time, gets mentioned on SGL occasionally. I bought it during the initial rush and was very disappointed.

It seemed like an overstatement of the obvious or a regurgitation of old news. I don't think I actually made it to the back cover.

A less prestigious author would have been slated for it...

All in my very honest opinion

I seem to recall that this book won an award, albeit an unofficial award, for being the most widely bought yet unread book of all time. I too gave the back cover a very wide berth.

[RobertI]

Setting up a small observatory. (from concept to construction). My big mistake was not realising that this ment it stopped short of anything close to useful on construction. By far THE most disappointing astronomy related book I've bought.

It just goes to show that even a book with a very narrow and specific subject cannot address everyone's needs, there was a recent SGL thread on observatory building where this book was recommended as being excellent (i was one of them) but apparently totally fails to impress others! An author's lot is not a happy one.

The titles in the Springer 'Patrick Moore Practical Astronomy Series' are very much a mixed bag. Some are good, others are most decidedly not. As you point out, quite a number of them relate to specific equipment, which inevitably becomes dated rather quickly.

Yes I have shyed away from those that relate to specific equipment or technology which can become or has become less than up-to-date. The books that I did buy in this series have been excellent though, although sometimes they take some real 'use' to appreciate them (i'm not suggesting you haven't btw). For example, Mike Inglis's 'Field Guide to the Deep Sky Objects' seemed like a very dry list of tables, however I recently started referring to it in planning some observing sessions and found to be a brilliant and cleverly constructed reference.

To answer the OP's original question, i find that I am often disappointed with the monthly mags, they cover just too wide a range of topics and only small parts are of interest, but i continue to support them as I want them to survive, evolve and improve.