APOD or FakePOD??

[MarsG76]

Hello All,

Am I the only one who think that this is not only fake but a bad fake???

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap190619.html?fbclid=IwAR1vbs6JSgSE4O6oIVRzrWp8bdeKIRyHXTYe7gbR90ct3GqMU7P_MroGkms

To me it looks like someone went crazy with filter effects....

 

[david_taurus83]

Perhaps the processors embellished the effects but it may be a visual representation of magnetic fields? Kit used below.

[MarsG76]

2 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

Perhaps the processors embellished the effects but it may be a visual representation of magnetic fields? Kit used below.

A representation I suppose.... I guess it's Astronomy "Picture" (not photo) Of the Day, so ok whatever.... being used to the thousands of Astrophotos I've seen, that image looks sus and wrong... like it's nothing more than a mask of a nebula with the swirl photoshop filter "screened" over the original stars.... Eye of the Beholder and all that I guess.

 

 

[DaveS]

It's a scientific image, showing the magnetic field lines near Sag A*. Doesn't have to be pretty.

[tomato]

It does give the impression that there is some artistic licence in there, but I love the photo of the instrument, proper machined components, bolts and not a bit of gold foil in sight!

[Gfamily]

Here's the relevant article from the NASA website. 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/magnetic-field-may-be-keeping-milky-way-s-black-hole-quiet

[Ags]

It's not the first APOD along these lines (geddit?)

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap190227.html

I think both are amazing and beautiful. No astrophoto shows only what they eye would see - that's the whole point of an astrophoto - to show us more.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Ags

[Alien 13]

I have no problem with that as an image but it aint a photo, to me anything that includes narroband or any other part of the spectrum that is invisible is "fake".

Alan 

[SIDO]

5 hours ago, tomato said:

It does give the impression that there is some artistic licence in there, but I love the photo of the instrument, proper machined components, bolts and not a bit of gold foil in sight!

I bought some heavy quite expensive wheels for a diamond plate mobile work table in my shop some years back, the wheels on that cart in the shot are awesome...

 

[maw lod qan]

I try to imagine what it takes to image from a moving airliner, all the vibrations, though  small, let alone the actual speed its moving. Goes to show you what unlimited funding can accomplish. 

[DaveS]

11 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I have no problem with that as an image but it aint a photo, to me anything that includes narroband or any other part of the spectrum that is invisible is "fake".

Alan 

Sorry Alan, I have to disagree with you there, there's nothing fake about NB imaging. All the data is genuine, the colour mapping just tells you where the emissions are coming from.

[Gina]

Absolutely!

[MarsG76]

11 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I have no problem with that as an image but it aint a photo, to me anything that includes narroband or any other part of the spectrum that is invisible is "fake".

Alan 

I disagree, narrowband is not fake (unless adding or cloning features and details that are  ot there on reality)... it is still an exposure of what's actually there and the structure, shape and detail in narrowband imaging is still visible when the same object is exposed in visible light. The difference that narrowband makes is that the detail more pronounced because it's not as susceptible to light pollution and so can subs be exposed for a lot longer for far deeper matter.

Edited June 24, 2019 by MarsG76

[MarsG76]

11 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I have no problem with that as an image but it aint a photo, to me anything that includes narroband or any other part of the spectrum that is invisible is "fake".

Alan 

 

29 minutes ago, DaveS said:

Sorry Alan, I have to disagree with you there, there's nothing fake about NB imaging. All the data is genuine, the colour mapping just tells you where the emissions are coming from.

Also... Narrowband and visible light photos still are photos, this magnetic field is basically a graphical representation, or simulation, no different to a astroimager who added "detail" or "shifted/cloned detail" in their image... (like a caught out National Geographic contributor) no longer real astro image but a representation and art... fiction limited by the arists imagination... like, to me, is this APOD image.

 

Than again it is nothing more that a passion and a hobby, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Edited June 24, 2019 by MarsG76

[JamesF]

11 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I have no problem with that as an image but it aint a photo, to me anything that includes narroband or any other part of the spectrum that is invisible is "fake".

Why would, say, an Ha or SII image be "fake"?  It's still wavelengths you can see.  You just can't pick them out of the continuum of the rest of the visible spectrum individually.

In some respects I think "picture" or "image" is a better word to use in the context of astrophotography because there's almost always some processing involved that probably doesn't match up with the view of "the man in the street" as to what constitutes a photograph.  On the other hand, so much photography these days is subject to some form of processing that perhaps it makes no difference.  It's a bit of a philosophical argument, really.

James

[MarsG76]

57 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Why would, say, an Ha or SII image be "fake"?  It's still wavelengths you can see.  You just can't pick them out of the continuum of the rest of the visible spectrum individually.

In some respects I think "picture" or "image" is a better word to use in the context of astrophotography because there's almost always some processing involved that probably doesn't match up with the view of "the man in the street" as to what constitutes a photograph.  On the other hand, so much photography these days is subject to some form of processing that perhaps it makes no difference.  It's a bit of a philosophical argument, really.

James

True... in that context my wedding photos are really just wedding images... 

[JamesF]

Just now, MarsG76 said:

True... in that context my wedding photos are really just wedding images... 

Quite.  I think someone was actually edited out of one of our wedding photos because the framing looked better without them :D

James

[tomato]

There seem to be a number of these "purist" debates going on in SGL at the moment. If we want to take it to an extreme, anything other than naked eye visual astronomy is manipulation of some kind, and anybody wearing prescription spectacles must take them off, its a technological aid!

To quote John Lennon (out of context), 'Whatever gets you through the night, it's alright'.

[Alien 13]

1 hour ago, JamesF said:

Why would, say, an Ha or SII image be "fake"?  It's still wavelengths you can see.  You just can't pick them out of the continuum of the rest of the visible spectrum individually.

In some respects I think "picture" or "image" is a better word to use in the context of astrophotography because there's almost always some processing involved that probably doesn't match up with the view of "the man in the street" as to what constitutes a photograph.  On the other hand, so much photography these days is subject to some form of processing that perhaps it makes no difference.  It's a bit of a philosophical argument, really.

James

I dont object to any processed "image" and its great to see them its just the term photograph used in that context that bugs me, I see "photograph" as a unprocessed image straight out of the camera ideally onto photographic paper but the digital equivalent is OK.

Alan

[Whistlin Bob]

50 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

I see "photograph" as a unprocessed image straight out of the camera ideally onto photographic paper but the digital equivalent is OK.

Sorry to be a pedant, but unless you're looking at a film print or an unmolested RAW all digital images are subject to some form of manipulation in the camera- and very few people who use raw do not post process their images in some way. Almost all images you see are processed to enhance them- usually by the software in your phone or camera.

[DaveS]

Well I suppose that would exclude pretty much everything other than reversal film. Just about all photography needs some work out of the camera, even if it's only developing unless you want to get involved with some of the less well used "alternative" processes.

Me, I'm happy with digital, including NB, and I have used alternative processes, mainly salt prints from 10x8 negs. Though not for astro.

[Gfamily]

3 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

 

Also... Narrowband and visible light photos still are photos, this magnetic field is basically a graphical representation, or simulation, no different to a astroimager who added "detail" or "shifted/cloned detail" in their image... (like a caught out National Geographic contributor) no longer real astro image but a representation and art... fiction limited by the arists imagination... like, to me, is this APOD image.

 

Than again it is nothing more that a passion and a hobby, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Some of us love the science, the knowledge that can be teased out of our different methods of observation, and the ways that they can be represented to aid our understanding of the Universe.  Adding truth to beauty is how I see it, certainly not "fakery"

I think Feynman had a response to an artist friend along those lines. 

 

[ollypenrice]

You could take a photograph of a magnetic field but it might not be all that interesting!

Similarly you'd be disappointed by attempts to photograph radio signal.

But when the invisible is transcribed into the visible the result is a 'graph' in the wider sense of the term. In this case there is a physical resemblance because the field lines are in their true location so it's fine to call it a graph or a picture. Sometimes a graph does not involve much or any physical resemblance with its subject. The London Underground map, for instance, transcribes 'options' into a visible format so I think it would be better described as graph than as a picture.

Olly

[MarsG76]

2 hours ago, JamesF said:

Quite.  I think someone was actually edited out of one of our wedding photos because the framing looked better without them :D

James

Hopefully it wasn't the groom.....

[MarsG76]

3 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I dont object to any processed "image" and its great to see them its just the term photograph used in that context that bugs me, I see "photograph" as a unprocessed image straight out of the camera ideally onto photographic paper but the digital equivalent is OK.

Alan

 

2 hours ago, Whistlin Bob said:

Sorry to be a pedant, but unless you're looking at a film print or an unmolested RAW all digital images are subject to some form of manipulation in the camera- and very few people who use raw do not post process their images in some way. Almost all images you see are processed to enhance them- usually by the software in your phone or camera.

 

2 hours ago, DaveS said:

Well I suppose that would exclude pretty much everything other than reversal film. Just about all photography needs some work out of the camera, even if it's only developing unless you want to get involved with some of the less well used "alternative" processes.

Me, I'm happy with digital, including NB, and I have used alternative processes, mainly salt prints from 10x8 negs. Though not for astro.

I too call it Imaging... Astrophotography is a word from film days...