APOD or FakePOD??

[ollypenrice]

To photograph means to make a visual image with light, I would have thought. Photo/light and graph/image. I can see no reason to distinguish between 'imaging' and 'photography' though initially I was irritated by making a noun into a verb, though we probably did the same when we created the verb 'to photograph.'

Perhaps a non-contentious way to describe images made by transcribing the invisible into the visible would be to call it 'mapping.'

Olly

[Gfamily]

Personally, I don't think most people see the example in the OP as being contentious, so I don't see that a new way to describe them is required. 

 

 

[Gina]

As I see it, a "picture" is any visual presentation.  A painting or drawing is a "picture".  What we see on the TV is a picture.  Generally a "moving picture" from whence "movies".  I think the difference between picture and image is splitting hairs.  So yes, a magnetic field converted into a visual display is a picture or an image. 

I call myself an "astro imager" yet what I'm really doing is producing "pretty pictures" though these are based on real photons.  I select which photons I want to collect with filters then combine and map these into an image which both shows what is out there and also looks pretty.  I am both a scientist and an artist and astro imaging involves both.  However, the difference between astro imaging and watercolour painting (one of my pastimes) is that astro imaging only uses what is already there, nothing added though some taken away, whereas watercolour painting is my interpretation of what I see or may even be pure imagination.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Gina

[ollypenrice]

8 minutes ago, Gina said:

As I see it, a "picture" is any visual presentation.  A painting or drawing is a "picture".  What we see on the TV is a picture.  Generally a "moving picture" from whence "movies".  I think the difference between picture and image is splitting hairs.  So yes, a magnetic field converted into a visual display is a picture or an image.  I call myself an "astro imager" yet what I'm really doing is producing "pretty pictures" though these are based on real photons.  I select which photons I want to collect with filters then combine and map these into an image which both shows what is out there and also looks pretty.  I am both a scientist and an artist and astro imaging involves both.  However, the difference between astro imaging and watercolour painting (one of my pastimes) is that astro imaging only uses what is already there, nothing added though some taken away, whereas watercolour painting is my interpretation of what I see or may even be pure imagination.

What you are reading now is a visual presentation (text) yet it is not a picture...*  But this is not the thrust of  your argument - with which I agree! The 'taking away but not adding' is an interesting distinction.

Olly

* This debate can get even more complicated when we look at pictograms or glyphs and more complicated still when such systems of writing add a 'modifier' which indicates 'sounds like.' A 'modifier' might turn a picture of a table into the symbol for the concept, 'able.' So here someone is writing both with light and with sound...

Edited June 24, 2019 by ollypenrice

[andrew s]

I think image is the correct phrase. We map numbers representing whatever, light I tensity, polarisation, graphs etc. into a form we can sense with our eyes ergo an image.

Regards Andrew 

Edited June 24, 2019 by andrew s

[Stub Mandrel]

People always assume it's Astronomy Photo of the Day.

It's Astronomy PICTURE of the day.

Over the years a number of non-photographic images have appeared.

I've emailed the Sofia project to ask how the image was produced in a bit more detail.

[MarsG76]

On 25/06/2019 at 01:33, Gfamily said:

Personally, I don't think most people see the example in the OP as being contentious, so I don't see that a new way to describe them is required. 

 

 

Of course I'm not being contentious... just that to me Astrophotpgraphy/imaging is a representation of the ACTUAL light being emitted by an object in the electromagnetic spectrum but within reason... for example UV-Visible-NIR, but above and below that, eg, Radio or Gamma-Ray, is more a scientific representation of energy... Images such as the one I quoted is a graphical representation of the magnetic field, not in the spectrum.. not a photo... NOW I know that it's all energy...but in the same way as we breathe and eat all forms of atoms and yet not every atomic or molecular combination would be classified as food or air for humans... 

I said ACTUAL above because images like this for example:

https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2019/05/national-geographic-falls-for-fake-milky-way-photo/

Are no longer photos but ART imitating a photo...

[MarsG76]

On 25/06/2019 at 02:47, Stub Mandrel said:

People always assume it's Astronomy Photo of the Day.

It's Astronomy PICTURE of the day.

Over the years a number of non-photographic images have appeared.

I've emailed the Sofia project to ask how the image was produced in a bit more detail.

That what I said above too... so I guess APOD can't be classed as pure "Astronomy" Picture Of the Day since an interesting and/or attractive drawing can be APOD but the only thing about it that can be astronomical is the artists talent. 

Ultimately none of it matters, it was only an observation and my personal opinion... and it is all related to the hobby and subject we all love.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by MarsG76

[Stub Mandrel]

The image is produced by mapping measurements of the polarisation of the infra-red light, and presumably is analogous to mapping wind direction with arrows.

 

Quote

 

Hello Neil,

The PI of the project, Darren Dowell, replied to your inquiry about how the image of the magnetic field was made, saying:

 

Quote

The magnetic field visualization (the "texture" or "streamlines" in the image) come from the orientation of the far-infrared polarization.  The polarization measurements are on a grid pattern, and we use an algorithm (Line Integral Convolution) which draws continuous streamlines based on the grid of measurements.  The direction of the streamlines is illustrated with the light and dark texture added to the image.

 

Hope this helps.

Nick

-- 

Nicholas A. Veronico

Sr. Communications Manager (USRA)

Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA)

 

 

[Stub Mandrel]

10 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

That what I said above too... so I guess APOD can't be classed as pure "Astronomy" Picture Of the Day since an interesting and/or attractive drawing can be APOD but the only thing about it that can be astronomical is the artists talent. 

Ultimately none of it matters, it was only an observation and my personal opinion... and it is all related to the hobby and subject we all love.

 

 

" Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer"

They are always open about which are artistic images. Without images like these from the first half of the 20th Century we might never have been inspired to go into space.

Take a look at these examples. :

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170626.html

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120429.html

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap061117.html

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080811.html

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050516.html

 

[barkis]

I certainly won't make any adverse comment on the image. It may look to be a contrived, and perhaps some manipulation has been applied, but we'll.meaning in my opinion. Intended only to reveal that fact can often be stranger than fiction.  I quite like it, my wife's hair looked a bit like that in her younger days 🙂.

Ron.

Edited June 26, 2019 by barkis

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

11 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

Of course I'm not being contentious... just that to me Astrophotpgraphy/imaging is a representation of the ACTUAL light being emitted by an object in the electromagnetic spectrum but within reason... for example UV-Visible-NIR, but above and below that, eg, Radio or Gamma-Ray, is more a scientific representation of energy... Images such as the one I quoted is a graphical representation of the magnetic field, not in the spectrum.. not a photo... NOW I know that it's all energy...but in the same way as we breathe and eat all forms of atoms and yet not every atomic or molecular combination would be classified as food or air for humans... 

I said ACTUAL above because images like this for example:

https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2019/05/national-geographic-falls-for-fake-milky-way-photo/

Are no longer photos but ART imitating a photo...

Radio waves are actual light waves emitted by actual physical objects. Same for Gamma, X-ray and the like. You just need a different detector for it, but it is in the strictest sense photography. The image shown in the original post is obtained by optical imaging polarimetry in the IR, so even that was written or drawn using light. I think restricting ourselves to the wavelengths evolution has seen fit for daily use is a slightly blinkered perspective

[antariksha]

Even I was taken a back when I saw the mag lines photo. While I did believe it since it is from NASA, I did not consider it fake. But I was astonished to see the crisp lines at that galactic scale. 

[Ships and Stars]

I won't be impressed until NASA can do this with a big dob strapped to a hang glider. A modded Boeing 747 full of fancy kit to make this image is just cheating.