Award winning photograph of Andromeda

[AbsolutelyN]

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

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:

Ah, get what you mean, but I'm not sure that would even work on astro would it? Everything is too far away. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by AbsolutelyN

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

What story does it tell?

Olly

It reminded me of what macro images with shallow depth of field look like and I related that only small objects are usually displayed like that (see image of spider above).

From that I just continued to think about how, although large, galaxy is rather small on cosmic scales and I found that relation "large galaxy depicted as small object because large galaxy is indeed small when compared to size of universe" - to be quite nice story.

[Seelive]

When I made my first attempt at M31, I took the lens straight out of a warm house and started imaging with the outside temperature close to freezing. The stars, as you can imagine, started off sharp but slowly turned into blobs. Perhaps if I made a GIF of the images it would look like you were moving away from it and I could submit it next year 😆

[ollypenrice]

Just now, vlaiv said:

It reminded me of what macro images with shallow depth of field look like and I related that only small objects are usually displayed like that (see image of spider above).

From that I just continued to think about how, although large, galaxy is rather small on cosmic scales and I found that relation "large galaxy depicted as small object because large galaxy is indeed small when compared to size of universe" - to be quite nice story.

I think it's a story you wrote, however! 😁

Olly

[Craney]

6 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

What story does it tell?

That we all produce a duff image once in a while.... and really he ought to get that focus sorted on the next clear night....   

[Captain Scarlet]

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I think it's a story you wrote, however! 😁

Olly

but beauty is in the eye of the beholder  

Edited September 11, 2020 by Captain Magenta

[AbsolutelyN]

8 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I think it's a story you wrote, however! 😁

Olly

That's the point .... the story is your own personal interpretation. It may not work for everyone but I'm sure it will inspire many people. 

[Jiggy 67]

24 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

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.

 

Stop sitting on the fence Olly......Do you like it or not!! 😂

[DirkSteele]

Perhaps I have observed something that is not real, but it seems to be that the results of the competition swing from "artistic" one year, and then "proper" astro-images the next, and back to artisitc after that.  This is year for art I guess.

 

However, it does seem that to stand out these days, something unusual needs be part of an image to stand out.

[andrew s]

Anything beyond calibration and linear stretching is largely subjective processing to bring out certain features in the data.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

However,  there is a degree of peer pressure where images are processed to match what the leaders in the field produce or a widely accepted rendition.

Regards Andrew 

Edited September 11, 2020 by andrew s

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The idea of the contest is to mix astrophotography and art, so it is certainly a valid entry. However, I am not a particular fan of this shot. I feel there were far better ones (including Alexandra's)

[x6gas]

32 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

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 think I understand your point but I'm not sure that I entirely agree with it Olly!  Perfectly possible - and not at all unusual - to have something far away in focus and things in the foreground out of focus.

Agree it's a mess, though, and the more I look at it, the less I like it.

Edited September 11, 2020 by x6gas

[carastro]

Quote

That we all produce a duff image once in a while.... and really he ought to get that focus sorted on the next clear night....   

and for that he wins an international competition and £10,000.  Honestly, my very first image over 10 years ago looked like the middle part of the image, but without the out of focus stars.

Quote

it seems to be that the results of the competition swing from "artistic" one year, and then "proper" astro-images the next

When did the proper Astroimages get a turn?  It seems to be gimmicks every single year.  OK, occasionally there is a proper Astro image amongst all the gimmicks.

Think we should run our own AP image of the year, I think we'd do a far better job of judging even if there wasn't a £10,000 prize at least decent Astro photos would get a fair judgement and the honour of winning. 

Carole 

Edited September 11, 2020 by carastro

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, x6gas said:

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure that I entirely agree with it Olly!  Perfectly possible - and not at all unusual - to have something far away in focus and things in the foreground out of focus.

Agree it's a mess, though, and the more I look at it, the less I like it.

If we think of things from actual / factual side - no way this image can be done - no stars are behind Andromeda galaxy that we can record as single stars, so we can't talk about stars in front / behind the subject - like we have in regular photography. Every and each star in the image that stands alone is in our galaxy and is far closer than Andromeda. There are hand full of stars that are in Andromeda and are resolved as single stars (or parts of large star clusters).

This is artistic side of things - take image of M31 as we know it and place it on a table - do zoomed in shot and yes you'll get most of M31 in focus and some stars on the image will be more distant and out of focus and some closer stars will be out of focus as well.

Above image depicts something very similar but uses real galaxy instead of image of a galaxy or rather creates that sensation - little M31 is sitting on a table and surface of the table is sprinkled with stars and artist did nice macro shot of it.

[gilesco]

I said this would make for some interesting debate!!

[szymon]

52 minutes ago, 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.

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.

This sums up almost exactly my thoughts on the matter.  Perfectly encapsulated.  Yes it's not an 'astrophoto' in the way that we usually understand it, but it really makes it stand out.  I look to the skies to spur my imagination; I am not a scientist, I am an imager; I see the future and the past, civilisation and void, the possibilities of life and the unknown.  That is why I keep my eyes (and cameras) to the sky, and I very much appreciate the winning image.

Edited September 11, 2020 by szymon
quoting the bits I originally meant to quote :-)

[DaveS]

Urk..not nice, and not astronomy.

I guess I apply a Group f/64 attitude to my images.

[vlaiv]

36 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I guess I apply a Group f/64 attitude to my images.

That is rather unfortunate name in today's standards - almost certain to suffer great diffraction blur

 

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, Captain Magenta said:

but beauty is in the eye of the beholder  

You won't find many professionals in aesthetics who agree with this, however often it is repeated. If it were true, art would be impossible.

Olly

[AbsolutelyN]

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

That is rather unfortunate name in today's standards - almost certain to suffer great diffraction blur

 

They also used camera movements (such as lens tilt) to manipulate the image plane to achieve their sharp focus 

Edited September 11, 2020 by AbsolutelyN

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

You won't find many professionals in aesthetics who agree with this, however often it is repeated. If it were true, art would be impossible.

Olly

Ah, that is one of my favorite subjects - let's try to define art, shall we?

[DaveS]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

That is rather unfortunate name in today's standards - almost certain to suffer great diffraction blur

 

Not too bad when you're photographing on10x8 and making contact prints. Done them myself, and the results are spectacular.

when I used camera movements it was largely to *increase* the depth of field.

[Louis D]

Meh, I've seen plenty of astrophotos on APOD that are much more aesthetically pleasing.  I think having an eye for an appropriate foreground here on Earth really helps to connect the cosmos to our home world better than creating a faux-macro image.  I do appreciate the novel technical approach taken to capture the image; though I'm not sure it's usable more than once or twice before people would tire of the effect.

[Rob]

I've seen so much spectacular images from our Friends and colleagues here on SGL. Now I'm no Astroimager myself, but I nearly chocked on my sandwich at lunchtime while seeing this!... I sat back and said 'seriously!' .. humm. I'm also an Art lover (classical to be fair), but this is one step too far for me.

I feel cheated on behalf of all our great imagers here.. sorry guys

Rob

Edited September 11, 2020 by Rob
typo

[dd999]

Personally, I really like it.

I love looking at all photos of Andromeda, from small smudge glows taken on a mobile to some of the amazing shots I've seen some very talented people on here share. Very rarely in photography is the end photo the one that is originally captured - part reality, and part the interpretation of the person behind the lens (and often the mouse buttons).

In the end it always has to be pleasing to the eye of the beholder. Personally I don't really 'get' some art, such as abstract, it makes no sense to me and stirs nothing inside but to others it brings a welcome reaction and a want to look again. Nicolas Lefaudeux's end result certainly created this affect in me.  

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by dd999