Rosette - Single channel colour image

[MARS1960]

All you will get from me is my usual interjection .

WOW.

[Scott]

2 hours ago, PhotoGav said:

Nice picture, but it is, as you advertise, 'a fake' and is therefore basically pointless. You have copied existing 'real' images and created nothing new, simply a rough facsimile of a multi filter data set. What you discussed in the other thread made me think that you would use the 'colouring in' technique to highlight specific areas of an image, for instance colouring the animal shapes in the Bok globules in a luminous green to really make them stand out. So, for me, this is not appealing. Stick to the full programme, capture lots of good multi filter data, process it beautifully and create a stunning 'enhanced reality' image that shows us what you captured.

Shocked of Marlborough 

Many artists (the ones that use paint and canvas) will take a picture of their subject and use as a reference. is this therefore pointless? 
This is not to say your point is any less valid, Just expressing mine

[opticalpath]

2 hours ago, swag72 said:

......... Should this processing not be examined or tested further though because of assumptions people make? I wonder what people thought of the first HST image, which has now become the norm for example

 

No, I would never want to try to stifle interesting new ideas ....... especially from someone with a track record of stunning images that have raised the bar into the upper atmosphere!  My question is: is the imaging forum the right place?  I suppose I would just be sorry if our imaging forum expanded to include many pictures that owed more to use of the paint-brush than skill and patience collecting and processing one's own data.  I certainly don't put your image in that category but once you say it's not all my data, who's to draw the line - would 10% my data and 90% artistry or other reference data be OK? 

Adrian

  

[swag72]

4 minutes ago, opticalpath said:

......  I certainly don't put your image in that category but once you say it's not all my data, who's to draw the line - would 10% my data and 90% artistry or other reference data be OK?   

But it is ALL my data ....... in the true sense of the word..... I didn't collect it from itelescope or remotely for example (which I would class as not my data ..... but that's another thread altogether

[johnrt]

It's certainly very interesting and expertly processed, I think I can see differences on how the colour is across the image compared to the more traditional 2 / 3 filter images. But unless it was pointed out that the image was only done with 1 filter I would naturally assume that a minimum of 2 was applied to the image. That's not a suggestion of a deception on your behalf, just an assumption on mine.

Is it for me and would I do it to my own images? I don't really know, possibly if I was hard up for imaging time and I had the foggiest on how you'd done it!!

[Scott]

I've got a cupboard full of Ha so it's something I'll be looking at

[PhotoGav]

I am most definitely for experimentation and this is a superb experiment. It has created a very interesting dialogue across the two threads, with as much thought about how we do things normally as about this experimental technique. Fascinating stuff.

 

1 hour ago, auspom said:

Many artists (the ones that use paint and canvas) will take a picture of their subject and use as a reference. is this therefore pointless? 
This is not to say your point is any less valid, Just expressing mine

Quite right too to express your point. Though a picture as reference for a painting is not similar to this in anyway!  In my opinion...

[Scott]

1 minute ago, PhotoGav said:

I am most definitely for experimentation and this is a superb experiment. It has created a very interesting dialogue across the two threads, with as much thought about how we do things normally as about this experimental technique. Fascinating stuff.

 

Quite right too to express your point. Though a picture as reference for a painting is not similar to this in anyway!  In my opinion...

Please explain why you think it's any different. I'm curious to know why

[PhotoGav]

Just now, auspom said:

Please explain why you think it's any different. I'm curious to know why

Sara's Rosette with mapped colour (the pic in this thread, not sure exactly how to reference it!) is the final work. An artist taking a photo as reference for a painting is a step on route to a final work of art. Neither are pointless, as works of art.

[Scott]

4 hours ago, PhotoGav said:

Nice picture, but it is, as you advertise, 'a fake' and is therefore basically pointless. You have copied existing 'real' images and created nothing new, simply a rough facsimile of a multi filter data set. What you discussed in the other thread made me think that you would use the 'colouring in' technique to highlight specific areas of an image, for instance colouring the animal shapes in the Bok globules in a luminous green to really make them stand out. So, for me, this is not appealing. Stick to the full programme, capture lots of good multi filter data, process it beautifully and create a stunning 'enhanced reality' image that shows us what you captured.

Shocked of Marlborough 

 

4 minutes ago, PhotoGav said:

Sara's Rosette with mapped colour (the pic in this thread, not sure exactly how to reference it!) is the final work. An artist taking a photo as reference for a painting is a step on route to a final work of art. Neither are pointless, as works of art.

As Sara has made it clear that the multi layered Ha image is purely for artistic reasons, I struggle to make these two statements gel.

[PhotoGav]

Scott, I said 'pointless' in my original post for two reasons:

1. Sara has done nothing 'new' with this particular image. It is a version of the Rosette that we have seen often, but she has created it in a different, less accurate, way. It is an artist's copy of the 'real thing'. To me, in the context of astroimaging, that is pointless. For the record, she has done it exceptionally well, as with all her imaging.

2. Sara is an inspirational imager. I have very much to thank her for in my own astroimaging journey. She creates spectacular 'real' images, so for her to 'waste her time' with 'unreal' images is... pointless.

 If we consider the image as 'simply' a work of art, it is not pointless.

I hope that makes a lot more sense now!

I also re-iterate that Sara's experimentation is fascinating and the discussion it has spawned is captivating in many ways.

[swag72]

3 minutes ago, PhotoGav said:

.......

1. Sara has done nothing 'new' with this particular image. It is a version of the Rosette that we have seen often, but she has created it in a different, less accurate, way. It is an artist's copy of the 'real thing'. To me, in the context of astroimaging, that is pointless. For the record, she has done it exceptionally well, as with all her imaging.

2. Sara is an inspirational imager. I have very much to thank her for in my own astroimaging journey. She creates spectacular 'real' images, so for her to 'waste her time' with 'unreal' images is... pointless.

 If we consider the image as 'simply' a work of art, it is not pointless.

 

I'm glad that you clarified your choice of words Gav as I found them ....... interesting

I'd like to say here that I did try to reincarnate the more traditional HST images that you see out there as I felt that was a good place to start.... I wanted to see if it was even possible to create such an image from only Ha data as I've certainly never come across it before... from there, anything is possible for sure, but first I wanted to even see how I and the astro community at large felt about such processing ideas.

As a carry on from there, I feel it is very much not a waste of time. It has enabled me to develop a technique that could save me many hours of data collection should I chose it.

Perhaps next time I can work on some original colour ideas ....... You'd better appreciate those ones Gav   

 

 

 

[PhotoGav]

Good, I'm glad that the clarification is useful. I certainly didn't want to offend. I chose strong words partly for dramatic effect as I know you like a strong opinion! However, my sentiment remains. Call me old fashioned. As for 'a waste of time' - it most definitely isn't and I never suggested that it was, look at the discussion it has prompted. I very much look forward to the next experiments. As I said, this is fascinating stuff. We are always striving for perfection and it is only through experimentation that progress can even be contemplated.

Good on you for trying to push the envelope (don't you just hate those silly boardroom expressions, however I couldn't think of a better one that said the right thing!). 

[Stu]

Lovely image Sara. You're a passionate lot you imagers aren't you? ??

I do like the 'artistic' version you've created, and as has been said, if everything is disclosed in terms of methods see no reason not to publish it in the forum.

I would also be interested in seeing a colour mapping based perhaps on intensity much like a weather heat or pressure map. This would not require any interpretation and would also produce a different rendition not seen so far.

To quote a phrase 'It's all good!', I don't see any of it as pointless ??

[Sp@ce_d]

A very eye pleasing image Sara

and... for me... that's why I got into astrophotography... because the images I saw pleased my eye.. In the same way that I was once drawn to being a musician.. what I heard pleased my ears.. I wanted to CREATE  the same things I've seen & heard... and CREATE my OWN.. with my OWN signature. Isn't this a very HUMAN thing to WANT to do?

But of course as you say.. there are rules... be upfront, be honest.. (and you tick all the boxes) we like to be tidy & keep things in their rightful compartments & certainly I for one couldn't live with myself if I tried to pass off "falsified" images.. I mean what's the sense of that?

Yes.. the first thing I thought when I read your other thread was... Hmmm imaging from the UK... might be the only thing we can do the way its going!

However, to be honest I think you've had an easy ride here.. if it were someone with "less" of a reputation I think they may have been hammered.. I remember the reaction to using remote robotic scopes a few years back... and I take my hat off to you for putting that reputation on the line. Quite a brave move & no doubt you have been agonising over this for a while.

I do think it's quite a separate thing from the "Imaging" that we do here though & perhaps once the furore has died down & others are brave enough to post their "artistic creations/interpretations" we should have another section. Somewhere between Imaging & Sketching. I certainly would like to "have a go" and can't see "innovation" as a bad thing at all.

So, a positive vote from me with the caveats/conditions to make it clear what it is. Well done for taking this on

 

[gnomus]

I am struggling to see what the issue is.  The image is great.  How many filters do we need to shoot through before we can claim 'authenticity?  What is authentic?  We have RGB, we have SHO, we have HOO.  May I suggest that this new technique be christened 'HaHaHa'?  This might also serve as a suitable response to the naysayers.  

[opticalpath]

3 hours ago, swag72 said:

But it is ALL my data ....... in the true sense of the word..... I didn't collect it from itelescope or remotely for example (which I would class as not my data ..... but that's another thread altogether

Did I misunderstand your earlier comment about the colour, Sara, when you said you 'put (it) in' somewhat arbitrarily, using HST images for reference?  I took that to mean that the colour separations (as well as the actual hues) were not strictly derived from your data but were 'chosen' and applied manually using the colour - and colour separation - information in the HST image as a guide.  Perhaps that's not what you meant; I'm sorry if I read too much into it and made 2+2 = 5!  

As I said in the other thread, the tipping point for me in all of this is that the colour separation should be derived strictly from the data alone (e.g. mapped to signal level) and not constructed or manipulated otherwise and painted in.  After that, I am quite at ease assigning hues to taste in the knowledge that I'm representing tonal differences that are real in the data.

And now, having said all that, can I swear that I never neutralized or colour de-noised a sky-background?  I guess that is manipulating the colour separations in a way. Then there's HLVG .... Oh no! 

Adrian

 

[Martin-Devon]

This is an interesting thread, and I applaud the response it's generated - let's face it, this post from Sara has prompted a variety of viewpoints and the diversity of these are rich and welcome, it makes a change from the usual posts and replies! It's got us thinking and debating, and that's got to be good.

When I first saw Sara's image, I immediately thought it was a HOO version, and was surprised (and impressed) that this was derived purely from HA data. None of the data is falsified, but it has been cleverly processed to show that colours at the choice/discretion of the imager can be imparted to key areas and features, and I don't have a problem with that. Frankly it's nice to see that Sara is pushing the edge of the envelope here, it may not be the 'standard' way of handling an image, but the outcome is creative and impressive.

Martin  

[cgarry]

It is definitely a nice image, though I am unsure whether it belongs on an imaging forum.  I wonder if it might cheapen other images where the colour does actually come from hard earned data.  That is for the community to decide though.

I would feel more comfortable if the image were annotated to indicate that the colour is fake as this image does look realistic and at some point it will turn up in a Google image search without the accompanying 'artistic impression' description. 

Cheers,
Chris

[swag72]

7 hours ago, opticalpath said:

Did I misunderstand your earlier comment about the colour, Sara, when you said you 'put (it) in' somewhat arbitrarily, using HST images for reference?  I took that to mean that the colour separations (as well as the actual hues) were not strictly derived from your data but were 'chosen' and applied manually using the colour - and colour separation - information in the HST image as a guide.  Perhaps that's not what you meant; I'm sorry if I read too much into it and made 2+2 = 5!  

As I said in the other thread, the tipping point for me in all of this is that the colour separation should be derived strictly from the data alone (e.g. mapped to signal level) and not constructed or manipulated otherwise and painted in.  After that, I am quite at ease assigning hues to taste in the knowledge that I'm representing tonal differences that are real in the data.

And now, having said all that, can I swear that I never neutralized or colour de-noised a sky-background?  I guess that is manipulating the colour separations in a way. Then there's HLVG .... Oh no! 

Ah right Adrian - Got you ....... Yes the data is all mine, in that I captured it.... the colour separations and hues have been chosen by me and used as I wanted using HST images as a guide. When you say hues, this makes me think immediately of the 'colour select' tool in PS where as a narrowband imager we change colours arbitrarily to get a colour that suits an overall HST trend.... I say trend as even within the narrowband imagers on here, people pick different hues and colours to represent their data.

You are right about the colour separation - I have not taken it from the actual data....... now let me say something else ..... in the search for the very best NB image I can produce I will often blur the colours before I add a luminance layer on top of that ....... that has already then destroyed the colour separation of which you speak hasn't it? I bet that there are few imagers who work with NB who don't do this to some degree of another..... so I wonder how many people can honestly say that they have never blurred colour to help with gradient, noise etc ........ Even working with RGB data and adding the luminance channel there are recognised techniques in books by the likes of Rob Gendler for example that recommend a blur of the RGB before adding the luminance. Just how far do you want to take this colour separation idea? That to me seems to be the basis of the issue and every one will do that to some extent or another........ Where is the TRUE COLOUR SEPARATION in any image?

I have enjoyed the debate that this has bought to the table - Its an interesting one and I thank everyone of you for reading through it and thinking about what you have seen  I think it is about pushing the envelope, not everyone is going to like everything and I believe that as long as you are up front and honest then people can make their own decisions from there. 

As to my reputation ........ I hope that it's still intact and it's a shame if anyone thinks I have had an easy ride because of it, we should all be free to bring new ideas to the table regardless of perceived experience and reputations.

I hope that my images such as these (Monochrome colour mapping) are welcomed and embraced on the imaging forum for what they are and not dismissed for what people may feel I am trying to represent  Rest assure that any images that don't state clearly the processing method will be a more usual data set

 

[ollypenrice]

Good frank debate. 

An artist shouldn't be afraid of what people think (though should be aware of the debate - and artists who challenge convention are acutely aware of that debate and are usually setting out to be challenging.) 

An astronomer is not in quite the same position.

Where does that leave an artonomer (or, if you prefer, an astrartist?)

I dare say the thread will clarify the matter!

Olly

[steppenwolf]

Quote

It is definitely a nice image, though I am unsure whether it belongs on an imaging forum.  I wonder if it might cheapen other images where the colour does actually come from hard earned data. 

This raises a couple of issues.

1. Does this 'nice image' belong on an imaging forum? Yes it does, the data contains the structure and light intensities of a celestial objects captured using a Hydrogen Alpha filter, the most commonly used narrowband filter. Does it belong in the mainstream deep sky imaging section? Probably not because it is an artistic impression albeit using genuine imaged data. It does. however, deserve a place on SGL somewhere in the imaging section.

2. 'Hard earned data'? This data was just as hard earned as any other imager's data so I think that is a little harsh. It is the post processing that varies from the norm, not the data itself and that is a very important distinction but also the cause of some of the angst shown here. THE DATA IS GENUINE, the colouring is artistic!

Here's one I did earlier and it was fun to do - it certainly gets my wife off my back as she doesn't like my mono images!

[Mr Spock]

It might not be science in the true sense of the word but it does look stunning. As long as you are open about what you've done I don't see a problem. I'd like to see more like this one!

[AndyUK]

Quote

... it certainly gets my wife off my back as she doesn't like my mono images!

Ditto.  If I could get some quality Ha data, and produce something like these, it would help, to justify to my wife might why I've spent to much over the years!

[Scott]

11 minutes ago, AndyUK said:

Ditto.  If I could get some quality Ha data, and produce something like these, it would help, to justify to my wife might why I've spent to much over the years!

Dream on Andy. In my experience, even when there IS justification she won't see it