Rosette - Single channel colour image

[swag72]

I like that image @steppenwolf , in my opinion you have made a very boring and flat target into something far nicer to look at

I'm glad that you clarified the bit about the 'hard earned data' as @cgarry mentioned, the almost 10 hours of data used in this experiment was as hard earned as any I have used before and as heard earned and as legitimate as any other persons on this forum in my opinion

[Physopto]

Well I like the image regardless!

Nearly all images as far as colour goes, are "fake" ! The colours are an interpretation of each different filter manufacturer and the program that you use to process them. OK small differences but never the less differences. If an image is pleasing and shows details of what is there, it does not really matter what the colours are. There are lots of different colour pallets. As long as you say what you have done, that is all that matters.

A GOOD IMAGE IS A GOOD IMAGE.

 

As I said I like it. Very nice Sara.

 

Derek

[Barry-Wilson]

Excellent debate and thread, with thoughtful and thought-provoking responses from everyone.  I must say that this respectful approach and critique has elevated the standard on the forum, no doubt causing us all to reflect on our views and practices.  Super!

I too have synthesised colour data when lacking through conditions (eg my sysnthesised green channel in M78, Barnard's Loop image from a few weeks ago) and so I have no aversion in principle.  I'm still gestating my thoughts for my own imaging - I am impressed with the creative approach to a single channel.

Good for you Sara.

[Tim]

20 hours ago, swag72 said:

It bothers me, not what people like or dislike, but that anyone may think that I was trying to deceive anyone....... if that makes sense

I understand that, but we can't control what people think. Half of them think we make up the data anyway, and say things like "It's not real though is it". I wouldn't lose sleep over them Sara, just do what you want to do, if they like it, they like it, if they dont, so what. As long as we are honest with ourselves, we can sleep easy

Besides which, in the words of Solomon, "there is no new thing under the sun", it's not like we are revealing the universe to the world, or presenting Hubble images, just presenting our particular take on an object. That being the case, there is now an endless resource of alternatives to consider, which will soon make it quite clear to anybody that is really bothered, just what the truth is.

With the image above for example, having imaged N2244 for many hours, it was plainly obvious that there isn't any Oiii results in there. But any one who doesn't know or see that, well they can check it out for themselves, if they honestly have nothing better to do.

I'm not certain people have always been that way. Facebook and the internet have made armchair experts of everyone it seems. Send 'em this?

 

[cgarry]

When I mentioned 'hard earned data' I was referring to the extra channels of data that would be required to produce a colour image using the usual processing techniques rather than this technique.  Simplistically speaking I would guess that you only need to spend 1/3 (or 1/2) of the time capturing data, therefore I do think that less effort has been spend capturing the data.  That was not meant to belittle the efforts you have obviously gone to to capture the 10 hours of stunning data.  The detail is truly fantastic.

I really enjoy seeing Ha data presented as a monochrome image and for me the jury is still out as to whether 'painting' the monochrome image, no matter how skilfully done,  actually makes it more enjoyable to me.  Great thread by the way, the discussion on colour in traditional images is thought provoking.  Keep up the good work!

Chris

[strutsinaction]

13 hours ago, gnomus said:

May I suggest that this new technique be christened 'HaHaHa'? 

Very droll. I like it 

I also like the image and can appreciate it as a piece of art. I can still see the structural detail in the nebula so there is a clearly scientific merit to the image too. What I can't do is infer molecular composition since the colours were not generated from specific filters but were instead 'painted on'.

I also don't think this type of image should be moved to another category. There's no debate about the provenance of the data, just the way this monochrome data has been colorised which you've made clear. Personally I prefer your normal processing (excellent and original) but it's interesting to see alternatives like this nonetheless!

Regards
John

[opticalpath]

6 hours ago, swag72 said:

....... 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? ........

 

 

At the risk of prolonging the discussion well past its sell-by date  .... .....

Yes, I agree that most of us are probably already using blurring, de-noising and colour correction tools that do alter the colour separation information that comes strictly from the data; I acknowledged it in my earlier post.  So it's not a black and white (  ) issue; there's a spectrum.  At one extreme, the colour separation is based almost wholly on the data, and any blurring, noise-reduction or excess green reduction, for example, modifies the strictly data-based separation by a small amount to achieve a more natural or aesthetically pleasing result - that still is essentially grounded in the data.  At the other extreme, the colour separation is derived wholly from external sources or references; colour is painted in arbitrarily where the artist-imager chooses, with little or no reference to the captured data, in order to create the desired result.

I don't think for a moment that anyone here would dream of doing it, but it would be only a small technical (not small ethical) step from painting the colours with artistic imagination and skill, with a reference image to hand ....... to simply pasting the reference image on top of one's luminance and taking (well, stealing really) the colour and colour separation 'data' more directly.  I just feel it could be a slippery slope once we accept the principle that it's OK to overlay artistically-created colour on top of hard image data, even if fully disclosed. 

So for me it's a matter of degree.  If the colour separation is very largely based on the data, with modest adjustment that does not overwhelm it, it's more image than art. If the colour separation is derived wholly or mostly from sources other than the captured data, it becomes more art than image.  Then it's a matter of opinion whether both ends of the spectrum sit comfortably on the same imaging forum.

Just my opinion, and as said before, I certainly would not want to discourage experimentation and pushing the envelope; how else do we progress?  

   

Adrian

[Scott]

4 minutes ago, opticalpath said:

At the risk of prolonging the discussion well past its sell-by date  .... .....

Yes, I agree that most of us are probably already using blurring, de-noising and colour correction tools that do alter the colour separation information that comes strictly from the data; I acknowledged it in my earlier post.  So it's not a black and white (  ) issue; there's a spectrum.  At one extreme, the colour separation is based almost wholly on the data, and any blurring, noise-reduction or excess green reduction, for example, modifies the strictly data-based separation by a small amount to achieve a more natural or aesthetically pleasing result. At the other extreme, the colour separation is derived wholly from external sources or references; colour is painted in arbitrarily where the artist-imager chooses, with little or no reference to the captured data, in order to create the desired result.

I don't think for a moment that anyone here would dream of doing it, but it would be only a small technical (not small ethical) step from painting the colours with artistic imagination and skill, with a reference image to hand ....... to simply pasting the reference image on top of one's luminance and taking (well, stealing really) the colour and colour separation 'data' more directly.  I just feel it could be a slippery slope once we accept the principle that it's OK to overlay artistically-created colour on top of hard image data, even if fully disclosed. 

So for me it's a matter of degree.  If the colour separation is very largely based on the data, with modest adjustment that does not overwhelm it, it's more image than art. If the colour separation is derived wholly or mostly from sources other than the captured data, it becomes more art than image.  Then it's a matter of opinion whether both ends of the spectrum sit comfortably on the same imaging forum.

Just my opinion, and as said before, I certainly would not want to discourage experimentation and pushing the envelope; how else do we progress?  

   

Adrian

It does happen to a degree. As long as permission is sought and the collaberation is acknowledged I don't see a problem. I don't see theft as an issue in this debate. after all, one only need go on any number of websites to aquire data to process an image.

 

[Physopto]

Just a small point here. We can control the filters we use, as  we can control the CCD we use, each instrument has specified wavelengths of light that they respond to. By that I mean they are identical if we specify 652nm it is what we call a specific frequency  and red light. The camera sees red light as such. (I know it is a monochrome  registration of intensity). 

The eyes respond to that colour in our world. If we are told as a child it is red then we accept that something is red, say for instance the colour of a flower. What we do not know is if the brain sees red in the same way! by that I mean I might see red as red but another may see it green but has been told that that is red, therefore accepts it as red from child hood and so for every other colour. We may all be actually seeing different interpretations of a colour in our brains, but we accept them as the colour taught during childhood.

So when we say it should be a particular colour what should it be? Sara's interpretation is as valid as any body else's. I doubt there is really a correct colour, just a perceived idea.

 

Derek

 

[zicklurky]

Nice image Sara! I'm quite intrigued by this, and would like to see more before I make my mind up.

We do a lot of processing to astro images to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Dynamic range compression, selective sharpening to bring the eye to certain parts of the image, selective star size reduction, RGB stars in a NB image, etc etc are all accepted techniques which modify our data. I have the belief that astrophotography is not a science, but art based on scientific data. No two images of a celestial body look exactly identical. A photographer has made their interpretation of the data, and what pleases them, which is different for everyone.

So why not selective colouring? Sara hasn't painted any more data in there. Personally I don't have a problem with this.

[opticalpath]

<<   So why not selective colouring? Sara hasn't painted any more data in there. Personally I don't have a problem with this.  >>

Sorry, I have to disagree.  Sara started with an excellent monochrome image but HAS painted in more data.  It's not about the particular colours chosen, but where the boundaries between the different colourised areas occur.  Sara stated that she had not used any of her data to determine the colour boundaries - the boundaries were chosen by other means.  Where the boundaries between colours occur IS added information which in this case was not taken from the captured data.

Adrian

 

[Rodd]

On 1/29/2016 at 12:39, swag72 said:

Thanks Gav and Pete - I was thinking that it was all going too well

Rest assured that I will continue with my processing experiments and whether they are pointless or not I shall post them while being utterly transparent about how they have been captured and with what data.... If people like them or not is fine, but anyone can be assured that I will be upfront at every level

I appreciate each and everyone one of your commenting and looking at this thread and the other one

Sara,

A truly breathtaking image.  Perhaps the best I've seen.  I have no problem at all with false color--that's what NB is all about.  However, there are a couple concerns I have.

1)  I am sure that the complexity of the processing is way beyond normal imaging.  I can't even make an effective mask, or render a passable image with all the tutorials and, guidance documents and high end equipment at my disposal.  Doing a simple SHO-AIP combine, or hubble pallet rendering, or using pixel math are beyond me, so however you did it, I am sure it  is out of reach.  As far out of reach as images rendered using the HST or Spitzer telescope.  Therefor, unless there is some data, some aspect of the nebula, revealed in this process that is not typically revealed in the "normal" way of doing it, I do not see the benefit--unless you think it fun to do, which trumps all, for clearly no damage is done.    

2) While beautiful, the controversy (not really controversy, but attention I suppose) over the color issue draws attention away from the superlative aspects of this picture--everything looks at the highest level, guiding, focus, resolution, noise, calibration, etc, etc, etc.  Remarkable.  

3) You say you used reference images.  I have heard of using reference images to calibrate star color, neutralize background, etc.  My question is is there any data present in the picture that was not captured by your telescope and camera?  Other than color of course.  And the opposite is also important, was there any "bad" data present in your image that was removed by using the reference images?  This would be different than removing the bad data by using processing skills alone.    It would mean that one can not render such an image without the use of another image--which, in some respect in my opinion defeats the purpose.

4) Regarding the "Art" debate--I am an artist (music, drawing, etc) so I love art.  However, photography is not just art--it can be done artistically--but it is not, itself, just art.  It is also science--at some level, recording reality.  In this hobby, staying true to the data is often considered important--staying true to the truth--there is empirical data that we are trying to reveal.  We try to capture the image of a DSO to show what it looks like, based upon its actual properties.  One of the key aspects of the original Hubbell Pallet, or HSO or CFHT, is using those techniques to reveal an aspect of the object not observable normally.  I guess what I am trying to say is, coloring Saturn's rings pink is artistic and may look wonderful to you--but it is just art--science has been removed from the equation (unless of course you discovered that an element in the ice crystals fluoresced pink when struck by gamma rays--or some such thing).  

Wonderful image.

 

[swag72]

7 hours ago, Rodd said:

Sara,

A truly breathtaking image.  Perhaps the best I've seen.  I have no problem at all with false color--that's what NB is all about.  However, there are a couple concerns I have.

1)  I am sure that the complexity of the processing is way beyond normal imaging.  I can't even make an effective mask, or render a passable image with all the tutorials and, guidance documents and high end equipment at my disposal.  Doing a simple SHO-AIP combine, or hubble pallet rendering, or using pixel math are beyond me, so however you did it, I am sure it  is out of reach.  As far out of reach as images rendered using the HST or Spitzer telescope.  Therefor, unless there is some data, some aspect of the nebula, revealed in this process that is not typically revealed in the "normal" way of doing it, I do not see the benefit--unless you think it fun to do, which trumps all, for clearly no damage is done.    

2) While beautiful, the controversy (not really controversy, but attention I suppose) over the color issue draws attention away from the superlative aspects of this picture--everything looks at the highest level, guiding, focus, resolution, noise, calibration, etc, etc, etc.  Remarkable.  

3) You say you used reference images.  I have heard of using reference images to calibrate star color, neutralize background, etc.  My question is is there any data present in the picture that was not captured by your telescope and camera?  Other than color of course.  And the opposite is also important, was there any "bad" data present in your image that was removed by using the reference images?  This would be different than removing the bad data by using processing skills alone.    It would mean that one can not render such an image without the use of another image--which, in some respect in my opinion defeats the purpose.

4) Regarding the "Art" debate--I am an artist (music, drawing, etc) so I love art.  However, photography is not just art--it can be done artistically--but it is not, itself, just art.  It is also science--at some level, recording reality.  In this hobby, staying true to the data is often considered important--staying true to the truth--there is empirical data that we are trying to reveal.  We try to capture the image of a DSO to show what it looks like, based upon its actual properties.  One of the key aspects of the original Hubbell Pallet, or HSO or CFHT, is using those techniques to reveal an aspect of the object not observable normally.  I guess what I am trying to say is, coloring Saturn's rings pink is artistic and may look wonderful to you--but it is just art--science has been removed from the equation (unless of course you discovered that an element in the ice crystals fluoresced pink when struck by gamma rays--or some such thing).  

 

The processing wasn't too difficult to be honest and used Photoshop and no Pixel math or masks (I can't use them either!) - I think that for many this potentially has merit as a way of producing a colour image from solely Ha data - It will take a little practice for sure, as processing always does.

Regarding the reference image comment - This was solely used to decide roughly where to place the colour, absolutely none was used or 'borrowed' from another image and likewise nothing was removed.

Thanks for taking the time to read the thread and comment - It's been a fun debate

[MikeODay]

Thank you Sara for sharing your image and initiating this very interesting discussion ...

I have no concern about what you were trying to achieve or how you have gone about it.  I believe we all bring different perspectives, objectives, pre-conceptions and taste to this hobby of pointing telescopes and cameras at the night sky and I understand that it is different for everyone but for me (so long as there is no attempt to deceive) it is all about the aesthetics of the final image and I really like yours.

It seems to me that this community of ours ranges from those strongly committed to the pursuit of science at one extreme through to those simply interested in the art at the other and, for me at least, I think that so long as we can accept the contributions from all to these forums, in the spirt they are given, then we and our hobby can only be enriched by exposure to the wonderful variety of content and the unique vision of others in these pages.

I look forward to seeing many more of your wonderful images no matter how they are produced.

[swag72]

Thanks Mike - A very thoughtful and insightful reply