Narrow Band - Art or Nature

[wornish]

I have been enjoying this forum for many months (overall many years on stargazers) and just recently bought my first narrow band filters intending to give them a try.

What intrigues me is that narrow band opens a whole new way of showing whats out there. Is selecting the right combination of filters  and  combining in the right proportion now an art or science. 

I can see the logic in when to use which filter, but the individual filter results seem to get combined  in proportions to achieve a desired result which pleases the person taking the pics.

The colours displayed in most images are just not visible to the human eye and seem to be being judged on artistic effect, with a little scientific  support.

I am certainly not artistic and really enjoy this hobby, is it now becoming an art  form ?

 

 

 

[Tim]

Use the filters to reveal the elements, then display the science in an aesthetically pleasing manner.

I wouldn't class astrophotography as art per se, but there is room within the range of applications to allow for artistic presentation. Take Rogelio's images for instance. Art? Yes. Science? Yes.

It's all good

 

[saac]

I've always thought that it is whatever it is that motivates the person taking the photograph.  Some will be motivated by an artistic/aesthetic outcome.  I suspect a smaller group will be interested in and capable of producing a product that lends itself to genuine scientific purpose.  Most scientific work, although not exclusively, would fall to those engaged in spectroscopy or radio imaging rather than the visible spectrum.  However, there is absolutely nothing non scientific in the use of filters to disclose a particular part of the electromagnetic spectrum - that's pretty much bread and butter to professional astronomers.     I don't make any pretence that what I produce has scientific merit; that is certainly not what motivates me nor am I really equipped to undertake such work.  I just enjoy  the challenge and hope to produce a pleasing and representative image of what is hidden out there  

 

Jim   

 

[tomato]

This debate has been rumbling on for some time but in my view does it really matter? I started out with LRGB because I wanted ‘true’ colour images of DSOs  but purchased a Ha filter so I could still image around the full moon. I have enjoyed acquiring these monochrome images sufficiently to  now buy an OIII filter to add some ‘false’ colour.

This will no doubt be a bit controversial, but I feel the data acquisition is more of the science and the imaging processing is the arty end of the spectrum in astrophotography. I guess that is why I prefer the former part of the process. If I have to start manipulating the data to within in an inch of it’s life that tells me my image acquisition has been mediocre, and I would much prefer spending time, money and effort improving that part of the process.

But hey, it’s all good! ??

[Adreneline]

This article provides an interesting view on the use of and assignment of colours:

https://photographingspace.com/ap-color/

 

[Thalestris24]

1 hour ago, wornish said:

I have been enjoying this forum for many months (overall many years on stargazers) and just recently bought my first narrow band filters intending to give them a try.

What intrigues me is that narrow band opens a whole new way of showing whats out there. Is selecting the right combination of filters  and  combining in the right proportion now an art or science. 

I can see the logic in when to use which filter, but the individual filter results seem to get combined  in proportions to achieve a desired result which pleases the person taking the pics.

The colours displayed in most images are just not visible to the human eye and seem to be being judged on artistic effect, with a little scientific  support.

I am certainly not artistic and really enjoy this hobby, is it now becoming an art  form ?

 

 

 

I think that at least since the advent of digital image technology science has used different techniques to help make visible things that would otherwise be impossible to see. In astronomy we have the Hubble palette (amongst other things) and in bioscience/microscopy  there is the use of  laser fluorescence and contrasting antibody stains to reveal subcellular structures and proteins. All just tools of the trade really. If we didn't use false colour with deep space infra red images we wouldn't get to see half so much!

Louise

[Tiny Small]

10 hours ago, Thalestris24 said:

I think that at least since the advent of digital image technology science has used different techniques to help make visible things that would otherwise be impossible to see. In astronomy we have the Hubble palette (amongst other things) and in bioscience/microscopy  there is the use of  laser fluorescence and contrasting antibody stains to reveal subcellular structures and proteins. All just tools of the trade really. If we didn't use false colour with deep space infra red images we wouldn't get to see half so much!

Louise

Quite right. The use of Ha, Oiii and Sii filters allow us to see the structure of nebulous emissions that would otherwise be invisible. The colour palette you chose to display that in is arbitrary providing it displays the detail. LRGB images can tell us all sorts of things, like the fact that blue stars in globular clusters are generally imposters and gain their blue colour by robbing mass from other stars, or which stars are on the main sequence etc. X-ray, radio and microwave also tell us things about the universe, but all are presented in a way that is visually pleasing. All of them are interpretations of the truth but still have genuine scientific value. Just because a galaxy has been photographed by Hubble and analysed by professional astronomers, that doesn't mean that you as an imager can't learn something new to you about that galaxy by photographing it and studying the pictures. I think that people forget that science does not have to add to the literature, it can be a personal learning experience too; it's still science.

[saac]

On 15/08/2018 at 00:14, Thalestris24 said:

I think that at least since the advent of digital image technology science has used different techniques to help make visible things that would otherwise be impossible to see. In astronomy we have the Hubble palette (amongst other things) and in bioscience/microscopy  there is the use of  laser fluorescence and contrasting antibody stains to reveal subcellular structures and proteins. All just tools of the trade really. If we didn't use false colour with deep space infra red images we wouldn't get to see half so much!

Louise

I really agree with Louise on this.  I think there is a great misconception out there in the non scientific community but using images with false colour really is standard practice in imaging science. Classic example is electron microscopy - if you think about it these images are completely "false" given they are imaging below the wavelength of visible light itself     Even the standard medical X Ray  uses "false colour".  False colour is simply a way of revealing structure that simply is not discernible in the visible spectrum; there is certainly no pretence involved nor intention to fool. A few weeks ago I was across at the Particle Physics department at University of Glasgow (visit with year 6 pupils) and we saw a wonderful image of the sun captured, not in visible light, but in neutrinos.  The image was all the more remarkable given that it was taken "through" the Earth  . The image obviously contained false colours (we can't see neutrinos) but it  certainly  didn't detract from its usefulness to the researchers. Only those unfamiliar with the process may be tempted to think that the colour in the image was carried by the neutrinos, it wasn't of course.  There is also a wonderful series of images and videos produced by IBM research that show single atoms being manipulated. These images are truly intriguing but of course we are not "seeing" the atom by visible light - that would be akin to trying to feel the groves in a record while wearing a boxing glove - the wavelength of light is orders of magnitude larger than the atom being imaged !!  The false colour here nonetheless is entirely valid. Here, it is applied to the underlying  (changes in electrical potential) which then gives a visual representation.  Maybe a more apparent example would be infra red images or even radar - the colours are of course truly false simply assigned to show the temperature gradients or with radar time of return - they certainly don't detract from the usefulness of the images.  I think the key is always to understand (to question) what it is you are looking at and with what it is being imaged; light, electrons, neutrinos, IR, electric potential  etc

 

Sun shining in neutrinos

 

 

Jim