Jump to content

Narrowband

Award winning photograph of Andromeda


Jiggy 67

Recommended Posts

Well this might make for some interesting debate. I saw that article earlier today.

I would term most of the pictures in the article not to be pure astrophotography, but astronomy based art.

When I image, I am trying to get a representation of what is there, this means that I only really modify levels, try out some false colour and automated routines to remove light pollution, calbrate star colours etc...

All my final work should still plate-solve to a location in the sky, and if it doesn't then I've probably applied too much artistic license, and I've left the science field behind.

What are other's thoughts on that?

Edited by gilesco
typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough (well...not actually odd because I rarely agree on what others find to be good astro images)...............................but I do not like this at all. When I saw it this morning my reaction was something like 😱

Just me....not artistic enough I guess 😟

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess there has to be something different to catch the judges eyes.  They must have had dozens of really top notch images of M31 alone and it must be very hard to judge.

I actually don't mind it as a picture but it's not really my thing which is why I haven't bothered submitting anything to this competition for years.  I am surprised that the effect was produced mechanically and I'm pretty sure something very similar could have been done in software relatively easily.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

Does nothing for me but I'm not an imager. looks like a beginners first attempt.  On more worthy awards, Alexandra Hart (Montana on this forum) topped the solar section of the competition.    🙂

At least that picture matches my view of astrophotography (as being a representation of what is there), rather than art (although for me it also happens to have artistic allure).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the photographer used in camera tilt shift to produce the effect. I agree it's astro based art rather than astrophotography. All the winners were a bit underwhelming to me and I think the majority of them were of an arty nature, although perhaps the solar winner was the exception. 

I think the make up of the judges, being mostly media figures and personalities, and conventional photographers has led to this? Ther seems to be little to celebrate technical challenging 'proper' astrophotography!

I think I would rather win Astrobin's image of the day (if it came with a £10k prize that is 😉).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, gilesco said:

Well this might make for some interesting debate. I saw that article earlier today.

I would term most of the pictures in the article not to be pure astrophotography, but astronomy based art.

When I image, I am trying to get a representation of what is there, this means that I only really modify levels, try out some false colour and automated routines to remove light pollution, calbrate star colours etc...

All my final work should still plate-solve to a location in the sky, and if it doesn't then I've probably applied too much artistic license, and I've left the science field behind.

What are other's thoughts on that?

When I first saw the image I assumed it was a photoshop filter to replicate tilt but when I heard him explain how he'd done it I was very impressed with the lengths he's gone to to create this image. He actually 3D printed an adaptor to hold the camera with about 30 degrees of tilt to the image plane. Basically emulating what you'd do with a tilt shift lens or large format camera movements. I think it's very effective, creative and makes a fantastic and unique image. 

I think there is a balance to be had between art and science. You are using artistic licence simply by framing up your image - deciding what to include in the image and what to exclude. I've taken many landscapes with large format film cameras and manipulated the image plane in camera with tilt, shift and swing to achieve the right result. The image simply uses traditional photographic techniques that have been used to manipulate the image plane in-camera pretty much since the dawn of photography.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AbsolutelyN said:

When I first saw the image I assumed it was a photoshop filter to replicate tilt but when I heard him explain how he'd done it I was very impressed with the lengths he's gone to to create this image. He actually 3D printed an adaptor to hold the camera with about 30 degrees of tilt to the image plane. Basically emulating what you'd do with a tilt shift lens or large format camera movements. I think it's very effective, creative and makes a fantastic and unique image. 

I think there is a balance to be had between art and science. You are using artistic licence simply by framing up your image - deciding what to include in the image and what to exclude. I've taken many landscapes with large format film cameras and manipulated the image plane in camera with tilt, shift and swing to achieve the right result. The image simply uses traditional photographic techniques that have been used to manipulate the image plane in-camera pretty much since the dawn of photography.  

Well, yes, an interesting method, but I still much prefer the image of M31 on your website to the one that won the competition!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gilesco said:

Well, yes, an interesting method, but I still much prefer the image of M31 on your website to the one that won the competition!

Thanks. The problem is there are thousands of images of M31 that are all very much the same as mine and many are far, far better. The winning image introduced a unique perspective to it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am gobsmacked by the results, I like about 3 of them only, the others just look like beginners results.  There must have been 1000s of decent images submitted and they pick these as the winners?

Speechless.  

I think they need proper astrophotographers on the judging panel. 

Carole 

Edited by carastro
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gilesco said:

Well, yes, an interesting method, but I still much prefer the image of M31 on your website to the one that won the competition!

And why go to all that trouble if you could get exactly the same effect in software?

To be honest from a technical perspective I think it would have been a much better image had M32 and M110 been in focus with only the stars blurred to give a sense of movement / dynamism.  But hey, fair play to guy and good luck to him.  Sure wish I'd thought of it and now had £10k burning a whole in my pocket!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it goes against what I like about astro imaging - first image of Andromeda galaxy is both technically very demanding and very very nice idea.

It represents image of M31 with "depth of field" feature - like it was right here on a table and shot in a macro mode.

This approach is very technically demanding because it is not single exposure like it has been suggested - this is a composition of many exposures and that is what makes it technically difficult.

People doing macro photography know this as depth of field stacking - when they use fast lens and try to get whole subject in focus by moving focus slightly between exposures. Process in this image is reverse of that - imager needed to capture multiple images of andromeda - some of them being out of focus - to create illusion of depth of field.

Artistically image is very good - as it tells a story about a galaxy in your palm - it shows how a galaxy can be viewed as very small object (needing macro lens to shoot it) - compared to vastness of space.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vlaiv said:

While it goes against what I like about astro imaging - first image of Andromeda galaxy is both technically very demanding and very very nice idea.

It represents image of M31 with "depth of field" feature - like it was right here on a table and shot in a macro mode.

This approach is very technically demanding because it is not single exposure like it has been suggested - this is a composition of many exposures and that is what makes it technically difficult.

People doing macro photography know this as depth of field stacking - when they use fast lens and try to get whole subject in focus by moving focus slightly between exposures. Process in this image is reverse of that - imager needed to capture multiple images of andromeda - some of them being out of focus - to create illusion of depth of field.

Artistically image is very good - as it tells a story about a galaxy in your palm - it shows how a galaxy can be viewed as very small object (needing macro lens to shoot it) - compared to vastness of space.

Could not agree more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AbsolutelyN said:

Could not agree more. 

Except it is single exposure - I just read the article and indeed it was tilt device.

I expected depth of field stacking instead as tilt often causes other aberrations to appear :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I think it's a mess. As a photo of Andromeda it's worth 6/10 at best and the gimmick with the stars may be art, but it's bad art and shows that the imager does not understand the effect he is trying to create. The reduction in star size towards the vanishing point is not wrong in principle but it should be accompanied by a reducing sharpness towards that vanishing point. What we have is the reverse, so the supposedly foreground stars are blurred and the more distant ones sharp, in painful visual conflict with what is intended. 

I'm not a fan of gimmicks in AP at the best of times but, done as badly as this, I really dislike them!

Olly

Edit: I come from a family of professional artists and am married to a professional painter. I react in similar vein to the gimmicky claptrap of 'conceptual' artists and hackers in half of cow carcasses! Hence my irritable reaction. Sorry, but there it is.

 

Edited by ollypenrice
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, x6gas said:

And why go to all that trouble if you could get exactly the same effect in software?

This is very good point. In principle depth of field can't be done in software as there is no depth information - you need to make it up, but here it is also "made up" - there is no actual data on how close things are, so yes, this effect could have been done in software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Except it is single exposure - I just read the article and indeed it was tilt device.

I expected depth of field stacking instead as tilt often causes other aberrations to appear :D

 

I assumed it was stacked as has a lot of detail for a single exposure. However single or multi exposure doesn't matter - its still unique and as you say tells a story which it key to its success. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AbsolutelyN said:

I assumed it was stacked as has a lot of detail for a single exposure. However single or multi exposure doesn't matter - its still unique and as you say tells a story which it key to its success. 

What story does it tell?

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AbsolutelyN said:

I assumed it was stacked as has a lot of detail for a single exposure. However single or multi exposure doesn't matter - its still unique and as you say tells a story which it key to its success. 

I'm sure it was stacked - at a single focus position.

What I was referring to was following process:

Take multiple exposures at one focus position and stack them. Take multiple exposures at different focus position and stack them, etc - create something like 20-30 images with different focus positions and then compose image by using "strips" of each focus position.

Most out of focus

A bit less out of focus

Very little out of focus

In perfect focus

Very little out of focus (opposite side of focus)

A bit less out of focus (again opposite side of focus)

Most out of focus on the other side

This creates illusion of depth of field or something like this:

image.png.9b88593bd2f0a110b4bcd9370daf8964.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.