Award winning photograph of Andromeda

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

What is achieved by having a full width horizontal band in focus right across the image?

I would say that this is necessary ingredient if one wanted to present image with depth of field - same effect displayed in image with the ruler I posted above.

It is almost like asking the same question about this image:

It is there because of nature of the light and camera lens. A consequence of fast objective lens and close subject position. If one wants to make Andromeda look like close subject - they will attempt to recreate the effect.

6 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

What is the significance of the deviation from round seen in some but not all of the stars? What does the particular orientation of these elongations contribute to the image?

Not sure if there is significance to this. It is again consequence of optical properties of gear used. Take for example this image:

This image was take with vintage Helios 44-2 lens. It is known for swirly bokeh - which you can see manifested nicely in out of focus red lights in this image. Design of the lens is responsible for shape of bokeh - and we can't really say that this is intentional by person taking the photo, can we?

[Stardaze]

On 11/09/2020 at 12:08, CraigT82 said:

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 😉).

Nope, he’s added an overlay over the top of what is a great picture. Not for me, it’s a strong enough image without that.

[ollypenrice]

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

I would say that this is necessary ingredient if one wanted to present image with depth of field - same effect displayed in image with the ruler I posted above.

It is almost like asking the same question about this image:

It is there because of nature of the light and camera lens. A consequence of fast objective lens and close subject position. If one wants to make Andromeda look like close subject - they will attempt to recreate the effect.

Not sure if there is significance to this. It is again consequence of optical properties of gear used. Take for example this image:

This image was take with vintage Helios 44-2 lens. It is known for swirly bokeh - which you can see manifested nicely in out of focus red lights in this image. Design of the lens is responsible for shape of bokeh - and we can't really say that this is intentional by person taking the photo, can we?

'...and we can't really say that this is intentional by person taking the photo, can we?' Of course we can! You use the tools which give you the effect you're looking for. If the effect is positive, fine. If it's just an irksome artifact it will create an irksome image - which is just what happened with Andromeda. In the image you post here the distortions are coherent and aesthetically meaningful. They seem to roll around the subject in an harmonious way.  Also, in this image, the foreground is sharp and the background soft so there is no conflict with the natural way we see things. It's a fine image - though it would be hard to go wrong with that young lady!

The macro effect on depth of field is only OK for me when the whole subject is sharp. I simply don't like macro images in which that isn't so. Bokeh in the background is fine. It's how we see things in real life. And it's fine in macro for me if the subject is sharp because that mirrors concentrating on a small object in life.

Olly

[vlaiv]

11 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

The macro effect on depth of field is only OK for me when the whole subject is sharp. I simply don't like macro images in which that isn't so.

Ok, fair enough, although I think there are some exemptions from this rule:

If we are going to be technical on macro or focus and depth of field in general - Subject's eyes are said to be important to be in focus for example - so good macro does not need whole subject in the focus.

In any case, I think that there is no much point in arguing this any further. I just wanted to say that I disagree with comments that image is technically poor or that it does not represent "realistic effects" and that blurry stars are just wrong in the AP image - in this sort of image they are necessary to create macro illusion and hence the whole point of having tilted focal plane.

I myself don't really find great value in the image in sense of Astrophotography (which I tend to view very much in documentary sense), but I do find value in it as general photography with space in mind / as theme of the work.

[CraigT82]

5 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I myself don't really find great value in the image in sense of Astrophotography (which I tend to view very much in documentary sense), but I do find value in it as general photography with space in mind / as theme of the work.

And therein lies the issue. Most of us here would like the competition to be for documentary style astrophotography, whereas it now really seems to be a competition for astro-themed general photography.

Edited September 12, 2020 by CraigT82

[JamesF]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

It is almost like asking the same question about this image:

 

That one ties my eyeballs in knots :(

James

[ollypenrice]

1 minute ago, JamesF said:

That one ties my eyeballs in knots

James

Same for me.

Olly

[Stardaze]

It’s physically impossible to create that depth of field given the distance of the subject. The closer to the subject, the less the depth of field, which is why you need to stop down as much as possible with macro. It’s an overlay which is popular in photography. Here's actually an example from a family Christmas card where I've used something similar. It's very easy to do in Photoshop..

Edited September 12, 2020 by Stardaze

[gilesco]

M31, in my opinion is not a good choice to try to win an astrophotography competition. I'm thinking of the Andromedeans, complaining about lack of sleep due to the stars in their own galaxy causing the light pollution, filtering out the light of our splendid Milky Way. M31 is always washed out with light, compared with much nicer whirlpool galaxies that have more definition due to their orientation of view from us.

[DaveS]

I've not yet imagid M31, preferring the structure to be seen in M33.

[vlaiv]

27 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I've not yet imagid M31, preferring the structure to be seen in M33.

[tomato]

I’ve never had a proper go at M42, call myself an imager?😳