Am I a cheat? A question of morals.

[swag72]

On 22/01/2019 at 20:51, Whirlwind said:

From a perspective if the images are for your own pleasure then there is not really cheating because as you are happy with it then it doesn't really matter.

 

While I don't disagree with this to a certain extent, the danger creeps in if it gets uploaded to the internet at any time.....Jet's suppose that 5 years down the line a Filckr account is used and this 'manipulated' image is put online (one that was only ever meant for your eyes, but mistakes do happen apparently and the wrong images get uploaded). Suddenly it is out there in the public domain and people will look at it, it will come up in searches and others will look on it as a genuine example of that target. It becomes the new definition of what that actual target is, what it contains. 

I did a few experiments a couple of years ago creating full hubble palette images from just Ha mono data. I was VERY clear about what I'd done when it was posted, I didn't want ANYONE to think it was an image that contained genuine 3 channel data. But the rub is that once it gets shared and is on the net, you lose control of making sure that people know what it is and how it's created. 

An interesting thread and dilemma.

[steppenwolf]

I don't think image processing is cheating at all as you are simply using software tools to bring out detail that is there in the captured data. 'Cheating' is incorporating data that is not present in the originals. You could argue that stacking is cheating then, however, it isn't as the data is still present - all that stacking does is to increase the signal to noise ratio to release what is already there.

Levels and Curves adjustment have an enormous effect on the image, releasing detail that at first you can't see but, again, these processes only work on data that is already present.

'Sharpening' comes in essentially two forms, deconvolution and edge defining. Deconvolution is very effective and brings out detail that may appear to be missing from the original but in fact it is there, it has just been blurred by the effects of light diffraction through the atmosphere. Deconvolution corrects this diffraction to return the image to how it would have appeared if the atmosphere hadn't distorted it in the first place so it isn't cheating! 'Sharpening' on the other  to my mind takes the original data and manipulates it to fool the eye into believing that transition edges in the image are crispy than they actually are - rather like contrast improvement on a miniscule level. Is sharpening cheating then? Not really, nothing has been added to the image.

Noise reduction again takes many forms but for the most part if it is done subtly, it is just an exercise in very selective contrast adjustment using the original data.

Colour is always in the eye of the beholder and unless you are specifically aiming for a scientific representation rather than the more usual amateur astronomer requirement for a 'pretty picture', anything goes really - just don't expect everyone to enjoy what you like! This is particularly the case with narrowband imaging - which by the way is also not cheating as it is simply a way of zeroing in on a specific part of the light spectrum to highlight what is already there - anything goes here as narrowband imagers are really aiming for high contrast, detail displaying images whilst using data that is genuinely there.

In summary, as long as you don't add anything to an image that wasn't already there at capture time, I can't see how image processing can be seen as cheating. The biggest cheat is the eye/brain combination which allows memory to enhance what isn't actually there at observing time! ?

[Whirlwind]

2 hours ago, swag72 said:

While I don't disagree with this to a certain extent, the danger creeps in if it gets uploaded to the internet at any time.....Jet's suppose that 5 years down the line a Filckr account is used and this 'manipulated' image is put online (one that was only ever meant for your eyes, but mistakes do happen apparently and the wrong images get uploaded). Suddenly it is out there in the public domain and people will look at it, it will come up in searches and others will look on it as a genuine example of that target. It becomes the new definition of what that actual target is, what it contains. 

I did a few experiments a couple of years ago creating full hubble palette images from just Ha mono data. I was VERY clear about what I'd done when it was posted, I didn't want ANYONE to think it was an image that contained genuine 3 channel data. But the rub is that once it gets shared and is on the net, you lose control of making sure that people know what it is and how it's created. 

An interesting thread and dilemma.

I think the moral of this story is never believe anything you see on the internet without engaging the grey matter!  There is always a certain level of responsibility is how things are reported.  It's different if someone is actively trying to deceive people (like putting an incorrect figure on a bus for example) compared to someone that is just trying to achieve an artistic image.  We don't, for example, criticise Van Gogh for his picture "The Starry Night" which is highly abstract artistic view of the heavens.  But then it was never sold on that basis.  If an image then gets copied and quoted by someone else incorrectly then it partially comes down to the person viewing it being slightly cynical (and the person copying it not to be clear of the source).

[Stu]

I'm purely visual so can only offer a viewpoint from this perspective. I actually agree with most if not all of what has been said. So long as you are only enhancing signal and data that is already there then I don't think it is a problem. I do a struggle a little with star size and shape reduction as that is potentially masking issues with setup or scope but it is no big deal really.

[kirkster501]

To the OP, your sentiment is that we shouldn't use Lightroom or Photoshop either on our holiday pictures?

Maybe ladies should not wear make up because it's "cheating" too?

Remember that there is no visual colour to be seen in a deep sky photo anyway.  It's enhanced techniques that bring those colours out.  Maybe it's cheating to do that as well?

Agree with some of what you imply.  I think it is cheating to use remote telescopes because then, that is not using your own gear to attribute the photo to yourself.

We'll all differ on this issue.

[Stu]

1 minute ago, kirkster501 said:

To the OP, your sentiment is that we shouldn't use Lightroom or Photoshop either on our holiday pictures?

On that theme, I know that the reason my brother's child never has crumbs around their mouth in pictures is because they are carefully edited out. That I don't get, and feel similarly about actually editing content in AP images.

[ollypenrice]

I'm always up for this discussion! As a broadband DS imager here are my objectives and principles:

1) I am not trying to be an artist. 'Art' is etymologically linked to 'artifice' and it is technically true that in making a 2D representation of a 3D object in the real world, I'm an 'artificer.'  However, the term 'art' carries too strong a component of creative license for me to choose it. An artist is totally free to create, to distort, to interpret, to select, to impose his or her own point of view. I choose not to allow myself those freedoms or to allow them in very limited measure. I seek not to be an artist but a craftsman.

2) Everything I produce must come from the data. I give myself limited license to emphasize such things as colour intensity, contrast on large and small scales and I mitigate the effects of noise, optical and camera aberrations. It would be obtuse not to change the histogram of the raw data but I don't invert brightnesses. There is no need to limit the image to the brightness range which a chip happens to capture in linear scale. 

3) I am not trying to make 'pretty pictures' and I consider the term a put-down. I give fair warning about this because the term belittles what enthusiastic astro-imagers are trying to do. While I may not succeed, my manifesto is crystal clear: I am trying to make beautiful and informative pictures. 

4) I try to ensure that my colours are close to what I can discover about how the objects' colour would appear if we had vastly more colour-sensitive eyes in the dark. An Ha emission nebula will be red, not green or blue, in my pictures. My background sky will be calibrated to a neutral dark grey. My star colours (a sample of them at least) will be checked against their quoted B-V colour index. When I add Ha and OIII I do so with the unmodified LRGB image open on the screen for comparison. Some drift in colour is inevitable when adding NB data but I try to keep as close to the RGB as possible.

Do I take astrophotography a bit seriously? Yes. It's worth it. A celebration of nature.

Olly

[Hallingskies]

When I see highly processed nebula images, accompanied by complex explanations involving lots of specialised and often software-specfic acronyms that only acolytes of their art can understand, then that kind of turns me off what I am looking at.  Such images are often filled with luminous colours and crisp, dark folds and channels of darkness that the authors call “detail”, some of which are not present even on Hubble shots of the same object.  Is it real?  I don’t know.  I just know it’s not an image I can “relate” to.

Image processing software has become so powerful that I think it is very difficult to say what Is “real” and what isn’t, despite claims of colour calibration etc etc.  One person’s pretty picture is another’s benchmarked image.  Astrophotographers ARE artists: what they/we are producing is an interpretation of reality, with all of the personal subjectivity that goes with it.

For my own part, I tend to “like” images taken by folk with “average” equipment from suburban skies and processed with “basic” software.  Folk working under the same limitations as I am, in fact.  When they come up with something “better” than I can achieve (which is the norm), that’s what I enjoy looking at and learning from.

When I see Takahashi/Mesu/Pixinsight in the equipment list, working out of skies with a hundred or more clear nights a year, then I think “fantastic, but....”.  That, to me, is no more “real” than some applying a weird noise reduction or sharpening technique to an image stack with some arcane piece of software. I admire such images, but they don’t “grab” me.

If I view any astroimage on the net, I always like to see the journey as well as the destination.  Equipment, sub length, processing tools, that sort of thing.  And I have a lot more empathy with those who have made the journey on foot, rather than by private plane, as it were.  That’s the great thing about SGL of course - it isn’t all about NASA APODs.

[steppenwolf]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

3) I am not trying to make 'pretty pictures' and I consider the term a put-down. I give fair warning about this because the term belittles what enthusiastic astro-imagers are trying to do. While I may not succeed, my manifesto is crystal clear: I am trying to make beautiful and informative pictures. 

I'm not sure that this is a put down phrase to be honest - I used it above but definitely not in an condescending way! 'Pretty pictures' can most certainly be 'beautiful and informative', I think we risk taking ourselves too seriously if we are not careful ?

[gorann]

I agree with most of what I have read in this thread. I think it is ok with quite a bit of freedom when the aim is to produce a good looking image without any ambition to present scientific data. I am a scientist since soon 40 years, but within a different field (biology), so I know all about the rigor when it comes to scientific data and how it is presented in scientific publications, but when it comes to astrophotography I feel that it is fully up to myself to make the boundaries. And I really love that freedom. I would not add anything that is not in the data but I feel free to emphasize particularly interesting parts of the image by using masks (in PS) after I have sharpened, or otherwise transformed the data (like NR or Hi Pass filtering). I am sure many of us do the same. So, with regard to the fat man in the holiday image, he would still be in the data but hardly visible, while more plesant parts of the beach would be highlighted.

However, what I allways do is to save all the original subs so if anyone would ever want to do science on my data (like looking for a super nova) the raw data will be availabe.

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, steppenwolf said:

I'm not sure that this is a put down phrase to be honest - I used it above but definitely not in an condescending way! 'Pretty pictures' can most certainly be 'beautiful and informative', I think we risk taking ourselves too seriously if we are not careful ?

I hadn't noticed your use of the term on this thread, Steve, and I know the spirit in which you would use it, which is to be slightly self-deprecating about your own work. Perfectly laudable. However, my first encounter of the term was from a spectroscopist who asked me if I '...did science or just took pretty pictures?'  I came incredibly close to giving him the two word answer I felt his question deserved.

I don't want to take myself too seriously but I do want to take the sharing of the beauty of nature seriously.

2 hours ago, Hallingskies said:

When I see highly processed nebula images, accompanied by complex explanations involving lots of specialised and often software-specfic acronyms that only acolytes of their art can understand, then that kind of turns me off what I am looking at.  Such images are often filled with luminous colours and crisp, dark folds and channels of darkness that the authors call “detail”, some of which are not present even on Hubble shots of the same object.  Is it real?  I don’t know.  I just know it’s not an image I can “relate” to.

Image processing software has become so powerful that I think it is very difficult to say what Is “real” and what isn’t, despite claims of colour calibration etc etc.  One person’s pretty picture is another’s benchmarked image.  Astrophotographers ARE artists: what they/we are producing is an interpretation of reality, with all of the personal subjectivity that goes with it.

For my own part, I tend to “like” images taken by folk with “average” equipment from suburban skies and processed with “basic” software.  Folk working under the same limitations as I am, in fact.  When they come up with something “better” than I can achieve (which is the norm), that’s what I enjoy looking at and learning from.

When I see Takahashi/Mesu/Pixinsight in the equipment list, working out of skies with a hundred or more clear nights a year, then I think “fantastic, but....”.  That, to me, is no more “real” than some applying a weird noise reduction or sharpening technique to an image stack with some arcane piece of software. I admire such images, but they don’t “grab” me.

If I view any astroimage on the net, I always like to see the journey as well as the destination.  Equipment, sub length, processing tools, that sort of thing.  And I have a lot more empathy with those who have made the journey on foot, rather than by private plane, as it were.  That’s the great thing about SGL of course - it isn’t all about NASA APODs.

If this is the case then the authors have gone mad in their software because no amateur image can find detail absent from the Hubble. I've never seen more 'detail' in an amateur image but will gladly look at any to which you'd care to link. However, I have certainly seen so-called 'details' which I know for sure do not exist in my data captured with comparable instruments to those of the poster and I usually have at least a vague idea of how they were generated. Pixinsight is a powerful and good program but early adopters were often tempted to over-use some of its algorithms. I remember the talented Roundycat on here asking why so many PI processed images looked like pictures of the human brain. I totally agreed, but imagers have now found their way around PI and make far more sensitive use of it. 

I can't agree with this. If you want to record the real sound of Andy Sheppard's sax playing you don't get him to play on the hard shoulder of the M25 and record him with your mobile. In so doing you introduce artefacts which can be better avoided by going to a quiet place with a good recording system. This is not artificial, it avoids the artificial. I can't agree that avoiding noise is equivalent to smothering it with arcane software.

I entirely agree that AP is about the journey. Taking/making your own picture is like playing a musical instrument yourself. Surely only a crackpot would say, 'Why bother when you'll never play as well so-and-so, the great professional?' Doing is everything. Respecting work done well in difficult conditions is also most important and I think we do that on SGL.

Olly

[steppenwolf]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

However, my first encounter of the term was from a spectroscopist who asked me if I '...did science or just took pretty pictures?'  I came incredibly close to giving him the two word answer I felt his question deserved.

Were you going to deliver the two-word dismissal before they hit the deck or after their extensive recovery period? I can see why the term might grate a little ?

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

I entirely agree that AP is about the journey. Taking/making your own picture is like playing a musical instrument yourself. Surely only a crackpot would say, 'Why bother when you'll never play as well so-and-so, the great professional?' Doing is everything. Respecting work done well in difficult conditions is also most important and I think we do that on SGL.

+ 1  Bravo!!

[ollypenrice]

9 minutes ago, steppenwolf said:

Were you going to deliver the two-word dismissal before they hit the deck or after their extensive recovery period? I can see why the term might grate a little ?

There are certain well known words or phrases which, however apposite, the schooled professional does not use on his paying guests! At least on a first offence...

lly

[steppenwolf]

21 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

There are certain well known words or phrases which, however apposite, the schooled professional does not use on his paying guests! At least on a first offence..

Please feel free to rearrange these words into a well known phrase or saying - 'point well good made'   ?

[kirkster501]

17 hours ago, Hallingskies said:

 

When I see Takahashi/Mesu/Pixinsight in the equipment list, working out of skies with a hundred or more clear nights a year, then I think “fantastic, but....”.  That, to me, is no more “real” than some applying a weird noise reduction or sharpening technique to an image stack with some arcane piece of software. I admire such images, but they don’t “grab” me.

 

I have all three of those and wish I had a hundred clear nights a year......  ten would be nice..?

[pete_l]

17 hours ago, Hallingskies said:

Astrophotographers ARE artists: what they/we are producing is an interpretation of reality, with all of the personal subjectivity that goes with it.

That is definitely true, at every level of the "art". There is always a degree of subjective (artistic) judgement about what a final result should look like. When to stop stretching an image, how much noise reduction or gradient removal to apply.
We all know that two imagers, even when working with the exact same set of starting images, will produce different results - different interpretations. And just like in other artistic endeavours, there is no right or wrong result.

[gorann]

18 hours ago, Hallingskies said:

When I see Takahashi/Mesu/Pixinsight in the equipment list, working out of skies with a hundred or more clear nights a year, then I think “fantastic, but....”.  That, to me, is no more “real” than some applying a weird noise reduction or sharpening technique to an image stack with some arcane piece of software. I admire such images, but they don’t “grab” me.

If I view any astroimage on the net, I always like to see the journey as well as the destination.  Equipment, sub length, processing tools, that sort of thing.  And I have a lot more empathy with those who have made the journey on foot, rather than by private plane, as it were.  That’s the great thing about SGL of course - it isn’t all about NASA APODs.

I assume those using cheap DSLRs could say the same about you with your five times more expensive cooled CCD camera with an electronic filter wheel. But you are right about the 100 nights of clear skies (=more data for each target) and those extra hours are probably more important than if the scopes are made in China or Japan.

[carastro]

Quote

 I think it is cheating to use remote telescopes because then, that is not using your own gear to attribute the photo to yourself.

If you have set up the equipment yourself and merely operate it remotely it's not cheating, but processing data that was captured by equipment you did not set up yourself nor even captured yourself IMO is "cheating the art of astroimaging" as you are only doing the 2nd part of the job.  Getting the data is the really skilled bit and you will have bypassed that part of the process.  There are a number of people doing this now, and I have already been involved in a heated discussion on this on another forum.   

I can't see what sort of self satisfaction they can get from doing this.  Yes they get amazing images but can they really call them their own? I wouldn't be able to, which is why I don't do it.  I'd rather get less good images that I struggled to achieve in less good conditions, but could at least feel it was all my own work. 

Carole 

[Hallingskies]

5 minutes ago, gorann said:

I assume those using cheap DSLRs could say the same about you with your five times more expensive cooled CCD camera with an electronic filter wheel. But you are right about the 100 nights of clear skies (=more data for each target) and those extra hours are probably more important than if the scopes are made in China or Japan.

A lot of the DSR images you see on SGL put my meagre efforts to shame! ? Like all artists, some astroimagers have more talent than others and I greatly admire their work and envy their ability. It isn’t all about equipment of course, but high-end kit helps. Hopefully though, we all have fun and take pleasure in our hobby.  Me, I  just like taking pretty pictures of DSOs with the best kit I can afford and with the restrictions of my local environment and my own limited abilities.

To me, getting images despite being a computer numpty and only getting maybe twenty clear nights a year to work with is all part of the fun.  The final output is actually of secondary importance.  So I don’t get too hung up on what is “real” so long as it isn’t chock full of obvious invention.?

[ollypenrice]

4 hours ago, carastro said:

If you have set up the equipment yourself and merely operate it remotely it's not cheating, but processing data that was captured by equipment you did not set up yourself nor even captured yourself IMO is "cheating the art of astroimaging" as you are only doing the 2nd part of the job.  Getting the data is the really skilled bit and you will have bypassed that part of the process.  There are a number of people doing this now, and I have already been involved in a heated discussion on this on another forum.   

I can't see what sort of self satisfaction they can get from doing this.  Yes they get amazing images but can they really call them their own? I wouldn't be able to, which is why I don't do it.  I'd rather get less good images that I struggled to achieve in less good conditions, but could at least feel it was all my own work. 

Carole 

It's funny how we all see things differently. I find capture a mechanical process but processing a thrilling one. If I won the lottery I'd probably pay someone else to do the capture!!! Well, maybe not... but I certainly wouldn't pay someone else to do the processing! 

Olly

[swag72]

5 hours ago, carastro said:

........  Getting the data is the really skilled bit and you will have bypassed that part of the process. ......

I don't think that the data gathering is skilled ....... It IS difficult to get things up and running how you want them (whether you set up night after night, or run an observatory) you will still sweat blood and tears with the tweaking, maintenance and things that inexplcably go wrong from one session to another...... For me the skill lies in the processing.....

But that's my take on it and will differ from others for sure.

[kirkster501]

The art of capturing the subs is a fundamental part of producing a picture in my view.  It is a science and engineering challenge to get all that gear acquired and set up and the rewards for doing so are the basis of a great picture - i.e. the individual subs.  If someone else does all that, how could I possibly call the picture my own?

If a friend sent me a superb New York photo skyline captured with an Hasselblad costing £20000, that he captured in full manual mode with great lens and filters and then I tweaked it in Photoshop, I can hardly call that photo mine.....

Hey, at the end of the day, whatever makes people happy and if commercial remote rigs are their thing then good for them.  However, I could never accept such a photo is "theirs".

[vlaiv]

19 minutes ago, kirkster501 said:

The art of capturing the subs is a fundamental part of producing a picture in my view.  It is a science and engineering challenge to get all that gear acquired and set up and the rewards for doing so are the basis of a great picture - i.e. the individual subs.  If someone else does all that, how could I possibly call the picture my own?

If a friend sent me a superb New York photo skyline captured with an Hasselblad costing £20000, that he captured in full manual mode with great lens and filters and then I tweaked it in Photoshop, I can hardly call that photo mine.....

Hey, at the end of the day, whatever makes people happy and if commercial remote rigs are their thing then good for them.  However, I could never accept such a photo is "theirs".

Agree about the capture, but not so much on remote rented rigs.

If your friend borrowed you his Hasselblad (or rented it to you for a night for appropriate fee) and you took the picture in full manual mode and after "downloaded" it from memory card onto your computer and did your own processing, would you consider it yours?

 

[carastro]

Quote

I don't think that the data gathering is skilled

I think it is Sara.  Agreed when you have had lots of practice and have everything sorted, you have all the spacing correct and no flex anywhere and set up permanently there is less skill in it.  But it's a huge learn in the first place. But for those who have to set up every time it is more of a challenge.  Even for me who has been doing it for nearly 10 years, it's sometimes a challenge finding a target in the first place, I frequently don't  GOTO the right place, and this is the fruits of not having everything permanently set up and not having the skills necessary to overcome cone error or being able to use Plate Solving (yet) among other things.

Then there is getting your spacing right, getting the guiding working well.  Using your judgement based on the sky conditions and the location you are imaging from, takes experience and a certain amount of know how.  Overcoming IT foibles.  

Yes I agree that good processing is a huge Skill as well and needs time to learn, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear, if your original images are not good for some reason, no amount of good processing is going to fix that.

Carole 

[carastro]

Quote

If your friend borrowed you his Hasselblad (or rented it to you for a night for appropriate fee) and you took the picture in full manual mode and after "downloaded" it from memory card onto your computer and did your own processing, would you consider it yours? 

Do you mean you operated it over the internet, or sat next to it and operated it all having previously been set up by him?  I guess my next paragraph covers my reply.  

I still struggle with claiming images are actually mine that I took at Olly's place, he owned and set up all the kit but I operated and captured the data.  Are they my images, well only "sort of" (ish).

Carole