Finally got to do my first color image through my TEC 110mm Refractor!

10x300 sec thru L, R, G, B 1x1 binning, ML 16803 using anti-RBI Flood flush.

http://www.scas.org/tk/M31.jpg

---

From: m.eytner <m.eytner@...>
To: tec-scopes@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 2:48 PM
Subject: [tec-scopes] Re: Three pairs of Brandons that is the question










I find that my pairs of Brandon eyepieces are parfocal, and do not find "sliding" necessary. Even though my eyepieces are of the threaded Questar variety, the collet type clamps on the VERNONscope bino hold the eyepiece barrels securely, and perfectly aligned.

The binoviewer is threader for 1.25" filters. Hmmm, I am not sure if the thread is for standard or VERNONscope filters, but a call to Don should answer that; the 1.25 to 2" adapter is threaded for standard 2" filters though.

My several scopes are f/10 and longer, so I mostly use the 24mm and 12mm Brandons.


--- In tec-scopes@yahoogroups.com, "eugene88882000" <eugene88882000@...> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Thank you for replying. I would like to ask you a couple of more questions.
>
> Do you usually perform "diopter adjustment", perhaps by sliding one of the eyepieces, on your Vernonscope bino-viewer?
> 
> Do you notice any difference in optical quality between 16mm and 12mm eyepieces? I remember reading that the 12mm Brandon is noticeably better than the 16mm version.
>
> Eugene
> 
>
>
> --- In tec-scopes@yahoogroups.com, Chris Lord <chrislord@> wrote:
> >
> > 32mm; 24mm & 16mm. I'd also opt for the Vernonscope bino-viewer, very 
> > compact, superbly engineered, comes with a x1.4 Dakin Barlow, screw fit 
> > if you want. When the exit pupil drops below 1mm a bino-viewer is very 
> > awkward to adjust precisely. I've used 12mm, and 8mm, but the lower 
> > powers are far more comfortable.
> >
> > See 
> > <http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/
> > Vernonscope%20Review.html>
> >
> > Chris Lord
> >
> >
> > On Nov 04, 2011, at 13:23, eugene88882000 wrote:
> >
> > > If you were trying to decide which three pairs of Brandons, to be used 
> > > in binocular -viewer, to purchase, the eyepieces with what focal 
> > > lengths would become your choice?
> > >  Other variables that are part of this equation are: TEC-140, 
> > > Astro-Physics 2x Barlow, urban skies.
> > >
> > >  Thank you for your comments and shared experiences.
> > >
> > >  Eugene
> > >
> > >
> >
>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tec-scopes/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tec-scopes/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    tec-scopes-digest@yahoogroups.com
    tec-scopes-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    tec-scopes-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2092/4595 - Release Date: 11/04/11

Hi,

This is the last one from the prolific Summer.

http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy

Hope you like it,
Manuel.

 

Hi,

This is the last one from the prolific Summer.

http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy

Hope you like it,
Manuel.

 

Stunning.  Your colors are wonderful.  I here looking at planewave 17 at the AIC conference.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 5, 2011, at 3:23 AM, "Manuel" <verti@...> wrote:

 

Hi,

This is the last one from the prolific Summer.

http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy

Hope you like it,
Manuel.

Very nice Manuel, great galaxy!
Floyd

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
>
> http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
>
> Hope you like it,
> Manuel.
>

Thought I would try a Starfield for a change this is 20 x 244 secs red 20 x 200
secs Green and 20  x 288 secs Blue Taken with ML8300 FLI RGB filters unguided
with the Paramount MX and FSQ106

http://www.pbase.com/t_total123/image/139410314/original

Thanks for looking
Les

I sent an email to Jim to make sure the feedback I am getting is correct.  I
have dealt with him on a couple other issues.  Others that I know have spoken
with him specifically about the Mac issue, but I'll clarify if he comes back
with anything different.

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, Richard Crisp <rdcrisp@...> wrote:
>
> Have you actually contacted FLI to ask them the status?
>
> You and others may not realize it but thus group is not moderated or even
closely monitored by FLI. Instead it is a self-help group that operates
completely independently of FLI
>
> Instead of spending many hours per week monitoring, deleting and moderating
posts, they stay focused on making the best cameras, filter wheels and focusers.
>
> I think you really ought to contact the company for an official answer before
reaching the conclusion that you have proclaimed to the world, assuming that
your statement reflects all if the sources you have contacted in search of an
answer
>
> Fli doesnt tightly control the information flow on their yahoo group like
other camera makers do: they dont need to, because they have nothing to hide or
to spin...
>
> Why not contact Jim at FLI?
>
> jim@...
>

Wow what a corker! Amazing result!

The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people present a
bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core structures (which
you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too dull and
unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range goes,
making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in the
core area.

A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result is still
spectacular! :-)

Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that CDK17-Pl16803 combo
is really singing!

Mike

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
>
> http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
>
> Hope you like it,
> Manuel.
>

 

Wow what a corker! Amazing result!

The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people present a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core structures (which you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too dull and unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range goes, making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in the core area.

A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result is still spectacular! :-)

Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!

Mike

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
>
> http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
>
> Hope you like it,
> Manuel.
>

M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has a
central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy has
one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other spirals are such
that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't there.

As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated and
somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a gentle
breeze to a hurricane force wind.


--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@...> wrote:
>
> M33 does mot have a central bulge.
>
> J
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@...> wrote:
>
> > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> >
> > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people present a
bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core structures (which
you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too dull and
unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range goes,
making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in the
core area.
> >
> > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result is
still spectacular! :-)
> >
> > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that CDK17-Pl16803
combo is really singing!
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > --- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > >
> > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > >
> > > Hope you like it,
> > > Manuel.
> > >
> >
> >
>

Hi,

This is a comparison between my processed image, and just a stretch of the
original integrated fit:

http://i40.tinypic.com/nv9mpx.jpg

M33 is nearly flat!.

Regards,
Manuel.

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "observe_m13" <JunkMailGoesHere@...>
wrote:
>
> M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has a
central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy has
one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other spirals are such
that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't there.
>
> As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated and
somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a gentle
breeze to a hurricane force wind.
>
>
> --- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> >
> > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> >
> > J
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > >
> > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people present a
bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core structures (which
you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too dull and
unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range goes,
making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in the
core area.
> > >
> > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result is
still spectacular! :-)
> > >
> > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that CDK17-Pl16803
combo is really singing!
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > >
> > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > Manuel.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

just levels, curves and gradient removal

http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/incoming/m33_ap155_pl39K_rgb_73x15minutes.jpg

18.25 hours at f/7 from a 20% QE camera with 39 million pixels



From: Manuel
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:33 AM
To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer




Hi,

This is a comparison between my processed image, and just a stretch of the
original integrated fit:

http://i40.tinypic.com/nv9mpx.jpg

M33 is nearly flat!.

Regards,
Manuel.

--- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "observe_m13"
<JunkMailGoesHere@...> wrote:
>
> M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has
> a central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy
> has one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other
> spirals are such that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't
> there.
>
> As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated
> and somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a
> gentle breeze to a hurricane force wind.
>
>
> --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> >
> > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> >
> > J
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > >
> > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people
> > > present a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner
> > > core structures (which you have done beautifully) the larger core
> > > region is left too dull and unrealistically dim compared to the outer
> > > areas as far as dynamic range goes, making the galaxy look flat rather
> > > than having a bright glowing bulge in the core area.
> > >
> > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result
> > > is still spectacular! :-)
> > >
> > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that
> > > CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > >
> > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > Manuel.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Who is trying to do scientific work, I for one am trying to take pretty
pictures. :^)
I too am guilty of too much color at times. I am reprocessing all my images to
lessen that and improve color balance as well as contrast and detail. I am doing
this to try to make the images more realistic. But, honestly I find NB images,
with their false color to be garish and overprocessed looking. But that is just
my opinion and those that prefer this type of imaging, I applaud your efforts.
Floyd

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@...> wrote:
>
> I’m with you on the garish and oversaturated assessment
>
> I personally despise overprocessed images and lately I seldom make comments on
posted images because they fall into that category
>
> So I’ve been not saying anything unless I have something nice to say
>
> It seems that most overprocess; in some quarters that is the price of
admission into the clique: either you use all the photoshop tricks or you are
dogmeat
>
> There are at lest two problems with garishly overprocessed images: one is that
it fouls up perfectly good data that started out with scientific integrity. The
second and far more significant issue is that it pollutes the mind and knowledge
base with bad information and sets bad examples for what constitutes good data
processing that maintains scientific and ethical validity.
>
> The observation about Gresham’s Law causing a degradation in the quality of
knowledge in the age of the Internet when any one can post anything about
anything, irrespective of whether it it true or false has certainly lead to a
diminution of the scientific integrity of astro-images
>
> in order to be accepted as a “good” image you have to destroy any
semblance of integrity with wavelets, high pass filters, deconvolution and
piecing together composites  otherwise the group-think and group-comment is
against you....
>
> No thanks guys, you can keep it if that is what it takes to be in the gang
>
> here’s a bit of academic wisdom on this topic for those that concern
themselves more with societal issues than things or celebrities, television and
sports:
>
> http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n01/finnell_j01.html
> Quoting:
>
> “Source credibility is the key to distinguishing between information we
should use and information we should dismiss. However, both credible and
non-credible sources circulate in our current information economy. Expanding
well beyond technology that which Boorstin could have conceived, in the 21st
century the profusion of information is bewildering. The Internet has
democratized the production of information and allowed everyone to participate
in its creation and dissemination. These factors, that make the Internet a
powerful means of disseminating good or credible information, are the same
characteristics that allow for bad and misleading information to become
widespread (Bates, Romina, Ahmed, & Hopson, 2006, p. 46).
>
> Before the advent of the information age, the task of assessing credibility
was much easier. Traditionally, information in print was executed by a whole
host of professionals (journalists, professors, editors, peer-reviewers)
ensuring quality of the information distributed. Since print information was
time consuming and expensive, the dissemination of good information was much
slower and hoarded by those who could afford it (universities, culture
institutions, journal subscribers). As a corollary, bad information
(non-credible information) was less ubiquitous. As a trade-off, less people were
afforded the opportunity to a voice in a system that restricted publication to
those with the means of production.
>
> The inverse is true today; more people are afforded the opportunity to voice
their opinion by publishing a Webpage online, but bad information is in heavier
circulation. In his book, The Long Tail, Chris Anderson colorfully illustrates
the information distribution on the Internet when he writes, “with
probabilistic systems there is only a statistical level of quality, which is to
say: some things will be great, some things will be mediocre, and some things
will be absolutely crappy” (Anderson, 2006, p. 70). The Internet is not
completely full of non-credible sources, just as it is not always authoritative
or trustworthy. With a nod toward the power of mass collaboration and creation,
Anderson states, “Give enough people the capacity to create, and invariably
gems will emerge.” (Anderson, 2006, p. 126)
>
> The unspoken issue, however, is that such gems may be buried under several
tons of rocks and gravel. For every Webpage constructed by experts with
extensively cited research, there are many more with little care for citation,
grammatical correctness or facts. Currently, both are circulating on the
marketplace of the Web with seemingly equally value. With information
dissemination readily available for instant distribution through Web publishing,
bad information obtained from a non-credible source is circulated back into the
system almost as quickly as it is created. The Internet magnifies Giffen’s
point that good and bad information will circulate together as if they are both
good when the circulation itself does not exceed the demand. We are far from
reaching our saturation point, as the number of blogs, Webpages and social
networking sites increase on a daily basis. Again, this isn’t a problem
depending on the information one is seeking, given that information quality must
consider the user’s needs. At the same time, credibility is the crucial
element of meta-information that all seekers of information should be using to
assess whether the information they are finding is good or bad. With anyone
given the ability to publish their ideas online, your chances of finding bad
information in proportion to good information are fairly good. Yet, from
accurate movie times to authoritative health information, people are seeking
good information from qualified sources.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: observe_m13
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:00 AM
> To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
>
>
> M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has a
central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy has
one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other spirals are such
that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't there.
>
> As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated and
somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a gentle
breeze to a hurricane force wind.
>
> --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> >
> > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> >
> > J
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > >
> > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people present a
bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core structures (which
you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too dull and
unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range goes,
making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in the
core area.
> > >
> > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result is
still spectacular! :-)
> > >
> > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that CDK17-Pl16803
combo is really singing!
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > >
> > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > Manuel.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Dear Crisp,

I'm not trying to be scientific in any way, just because I don't feel atracted
by science in this case. I'm trying to create a image that artistically may
impress someone.

I kindly ask you not to call my images "crap" just because they are not
ethically perfect, as you said.

The image of M27 was mine, and I spent about 10% of the capture time in
processing. And it was nothing else that a deconvolution, a merge of all the
channels (HaOIIRGB) and dynamic range compression. Do you know that when you
look though the telescope, your brain is doing that?. Why can't I do it?.

By the way, what is reality?, what are the colors that should the objects have.
And the contrast?.

Best regards,
Manuel.

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@...> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that irrespective of your personal intentions that once the
images are posted on a website they become available for anyone to see
>
> there are far more examples of badly processed images than there are good ones
with high levels of integrity and that’s the point of putting garish
oversaturated crap up on the internet and calling it a “pretty picture”,
whatever that means.
>
> I appreciate and sympathize with your goal of making pretty pictures. It is
what we are defining as “pretty” to which I take issue.
>
> when the majority of examples that pass the group-think test are garish and
overprocessed and deviate significantly from valid scientific integrity (meaning
things are real and aren’t artifacts that have become sharpened and clone
stamped into place), then there’s no easy to find quality benchmark to which
to aspire to emulate. Instead there are lot of things that looked like a certain
M27 image posted earlier in the year.... heavily processed, far more time spent
using photoshop than in actually  gathering the photons.
>
> I’ve notice in some cultures a benchmark of extreme beauty in women may
include excessive makeup (overprocessing), some to the point of looking
clown-like (garish) from the perspective of other cultures.
>
> Perhaps it is a cultural thing? I’ve certainly noticed a correlation.
>
> I suggest thinking of it like gourmet cooking: start with high quality
ingredients and use only a small number of them. If you can identify an
ingredient by taste, then you’ve over used it.
>
>
>
> From: bakersfieldbiker
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:53 AM
> To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re:
[FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
>
>
> Who is trying to do scientific work, I for one am trying to take pretty
pictures. :^)
> I too am guilty of too much color at times. I am reprocessing all my images to
lessen that and improve color balance as well as contrast and detail. I am doing
this to try to make the images more realistic. But, honestly I find NB images,
with their false color to be garish and overprocessed looking. But that is just
my opinion and those that prefer this type of imaging, I applaud your efforts.
> Floyd
>
> --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> >
> > I’m with you on the garish and oversaturated assessment
> >
> > I personally despise overprocessed images and lately I seldom make comments
on posted images because they fall into that category
> >
> > So I’ve been not saying anything unless I have something nice to say
> >
> > It seems that most overprocess; in some quarters that is the price of
admission into the clique: either you use all the photoshop tricks or you are
dogmeat
> >
> > There are at lest two problems with garishly overprocessed images: one is
that it fouls up perfectly good data that started out with scientific integrity.
The second and far more significant issue is that it pollutes the mind and
knowledge base with bad information and sets bad examples for what constitutes
good data processing that maintains scientific and ethical validity.
> >
> > The observation about Gresham’s Law causing a degradation in the
quality of knowledge in the age of the Internet when any one can post anything
about anything, irrespective of whether it it true or false has certainly lead
to a diminution of the scientific integrity of astro-images
> >
> > in order to be accepted as a “good” image you have to destroy any
semblance of integrity with wavelets, high pass filters, deconvolution and
piecing together composites otherwise the group-think and group-comment is
against you....
> >
> > No thanks guys, you can keep it if that is what it takes to be in the gang
> >
> > here’s a bit of academic wisdom on this topic for those that concern
themselves more with societal issues than things or celebrities, television and
sports:
> >
> > http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n01/finnell_j01.html
> > Quoting:
> >
> > “Source credibility is the key to distinguishing between information we
should use and information we should dismiss. However, both credible and
non-credible sources circulate in our current information economy. Expanding
well beyond technology that which Boorstin could have conceived, in the 21st
century the profusion of information is bewildering. The Internet has
democratized the production of information and allowed everyone to participate
in its creation and dissemination. These factors, that make the Internet a
powerful means of disseminating good or credible information, are the same
characteristics that allow for bad and misleading information to become
widespread (Bates, Romina, Ahmed, & Hopson, 2006, p. 46).
> >
> > Before the advent of the information age, the task of assessing credibility
was much easier. Traditionally, information in print was executed by a whole
host of professionals (journalists, professors, editors, peer-reviewers)
ensuring quality of the information distributed. Since print information was
time consuming and expensive, the dissemination of good information was much
slower and hoarded by those who could afford it (universities, culture
institutions, journal subscribers). As a corollary, bad information
(non-credible information) was less ubiquitous. As a trade-off, less people were
afforded the opportunity to a voice in a system that restricted publication to
those with the means of production.
> >
> > The inverse is true today; more people are afforded the opportunity to voice
their opinion by publishing a Webpage online, but bad information is in heavier
circulation. In his book, The Long Tail, Chris Anderson colorfully illustrates
the information distribution on the Internet when he writes, “with
probabilistic systems there is only a statistical level of quality, which is to
say: some things will be great, some things will be mediocre, and some things
will be absolutely crappy” (Anderson, 2006, p. 70). The Internet is not
completely full of non-credible sources, just as it is not always authoritative
or trustworthy. With a nod toward the power of mass collaboration and creation,
Anderson states, “Give enough people the capacity to create, and invariably
gems will emerge.” (Anderson, 2006, p. 126)
> >
> > The unspoken issue, however, is that such gems may be buried under several
tons of rocks and gravel. For every Webpage constructed by experts with
extensively cited research, there are many more with little care for citation,
grammatical correctness or facts. Currently, both are circulating on the
marketplace of the Web with seemingly equally value. With information
dissemination readily available for instant distribution through Web publishing,
bad information obtained from a non-credible source is circulated back into the
system almost as quickly as it is created. The Internet magnifies Giffen’s
point that good and bad information will circulate together as if they are both
good when the circulation itself does not exceed the demand. We are far from
reaching our saturation point, as the number of blogs, Webpages and social
networking sites increase on a daily basis. Again, this isn’t a problem
depending on the information one is seeking, given that information quality must
consider the user’s needs. At the same time, credibility is the crucial
element of meta-information that all seekers of information should be using to
assess whether the information they are finding is good or bad. With anyone
given the ability to publish their ideas online, your chances of finding bad
information in proportion to good information are fairly good. Yet, from
accurate movie times to authoritative health information, people are seeking
good information from qualified sources.”
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: observe_m13
> > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:00 AM
> > To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> >
> >
> > M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has a
central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy has
one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other spirals are such
that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't there.
> >
> > As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated and
somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a gentle
breeze to a hurricane force wind.
> >
> > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > > >
> > > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people present
a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core structures
(which you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too dull and
unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range goes,
making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in the
core area.
> > > >
> > > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result is
still spectacular! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that
CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > > Manuel.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I'm not an astroimager, save in the sense that I take images of asteroids, so my
two
cents may have no value here.

The reason I'm butting is Manuel's question:

  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By the way, what is reality?, what are the colors that should the objects have.
And
the contrast?.
  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Debra Ceravolo gave a nice talk on this subject at the Society of Astronomical
Sciences symposium last May. You can access her paper and a video of the talk at
the
SAS web site:

    http://www.SocAstroSci.org.

She has an article in the December 2011 Sky/Tel (pg 70) along these lines as
well.

I'll close with a quote from Shakespeare:

    "When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
     the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."

It's food for thought.

Clear Skies,
Brian D. Warner
Palmer Divide Observatory


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6606 (20111106) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Manuel,

I for one enjoyed your image, very nice details and color. I tried M33 too but
couldnt get as much details with a shorter focal lenght.

Besides we can always watch the Discovery Channel for scientific enlightenment!

Rouzbeh,


--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
>
> http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
>
> Hope you like it,
> Manuel.
>

HI Richard,
Well I will agree, the truth is that many photos do look poor, including many of
yours that I have looked at in the past. Processing is an individual taste and
like all taste, not the same for everyone.

I do not see how you feel that garish NB images, rich in greens and other
colors, are less over saturated or that they look better and show better
scientific data. High contrast between bandwidths does help to separate the
lines of emission with NB, but all those emission lines are also found in LRGB
photos. NB images tend to be very colorful and many are almost unbearable at
times for me ;^), but that is just my own opinion on color. Greyscale NB looks
very nice to me, like B&W photos from days gone by, but the false color images
are just not my cup of tea.

Sometimes I feel that people get a little too self centered on their own
personal likes and dislikes as far as photography is concerned. But just like
art, there are many styles of painting, including impressionism, that do not
show reality, but rather the artists own conception of reality. I think that
astophotography is another form of art, maybe not science, but artistic
expression.

I do think that colors do get over saturated by some, which does look a bit loud
and mistakes are made in processing like too much sharpening and contrast. But,
it is not easy to process LRGB and get perfection, it is a big learning curve
and takes years to master. I for one am trying very hard to master the
techniques to produce LRGB that is properly processed and present a pleasing but
also realistic view of an object. I am making progress, but it is an uphill
climb with a lot of time and effort envolved.

Photoshop and other programs like PixInsight are tools, like an artists brush
and paints, that one can use to express your impressions of the universe. Like
all artistic expressions, the same object can be painted, but with different
styles, they are not carbon copies of each other. That is the beauty of art, you
are not trying to emulate nature or someone elses expression, but your own sense
of color and scale.
Floyd



--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@...> wrote:
>
> I did not call your image crap
>
> I did lump it into a growing set that I collectively call crap because they
are:
>
> excellent data ruined by:
>
> 1) over sharpening/smoothing
> 2) excessive manipulation/layering
> 3) luminance layers made from a single emission line but overlaid over
broadband data
> 4) overdone saturation
>
> in short we have the very unhappy situation of the ignorant teaching the
beginners utter rubbish yet represented as best known methods and things have so
far degraded that unless an image is a garish oversaturated testament to
misguided processing, it is deemed unworthy by the group-think.  I’ve seen one
completely unqualified person that writes a highly misguided column for
Astronomy that so excessively processes his data that noise spots are
transformed into galaxies...
>
> Let’s keep in mind that group-think brought us such wonderful additions to
our collective knowledge as
> 1) the Earth is flat
> 2) the Earth is the center of the universe
> 3) one cannot supersede the speed of sound and live to tell about it
>
> A memorable comment by one of the team that processes Hubble images: “we
never know how our images will be used so we do not sharpen, smooth, clone stamp
or any of the other things amateurs do frequently: lest we find our image used
to “prove” a spaceship resides in the tail of a comet or other such silly
thing”
>
> perhaps the quote isn’t 100% accurate but the spirit of it is.
>
>
>
> From: Manuel
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 12:03 PM
> To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re:
[FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
>
>
> Dear Crisp,
>
> I'm not trying to be scientific in any way, just because I don't feel atracted
by science in this case. I'm trying to create a image that artistically may
impress someone.
>
> I kindly ask you not to call my images "crap" just because they are not
ethically perfect, as you said.
>
> The image of M27 was mine, and I spent about 10% of the capture time in
processing. And it was nothing else that a deconvolution, a merge of all the
channels (HaOIIRGB) and dynamic range compression. Do you know that when you
look though the telescope, your brain is doing that?. Why can't I do it?.
>
> By the way, what is reality?, what are the colors that should the objects
have. And the contrast?.
>
> Best regards,
> Manuel.
>
> --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> >
> > Keep in mind that irrespective of your personal intentions that once the
images are posted on a website they become available for anyone to see
> >
> > there are far more examples of badly processed images than there are good
ones with high levels of integrity and that’s the point of putting garish
oversaturated crap up on the internet and calling it a “pretty
picture”, whatever that means.
> >
> > I appreciate and sympathize with your goal of making pretty pictures. It is
what we are defining as “pretty” to which I take issue.
> >
> > when the majority of examples that pass the group-think test are garish and
overprocessed and deviate significantly from valid scientific integrity (meaning
things are real and aren’t artifacts that have become sharpened and clone
stamped into place), then there’s no easy to find quality benchmark to
which to aspire to emulate. Instead there are lot of things that looked like a
certain M27 image posted earlier in the year.... heavily processed, far more
time spent using photoshop than in actually gathering the photons.
> >
> > I’ve notice in some cultures a benchmark of extreme beauty in women may
include excessive makeup (overprocessing), some to the point of looking
clown-like (garish) from the perspective of other cultures.
> >
> > Perhaps it is a cultural thing? I’ve certainly noticed a correlation.
> >
> > I suggest thinking of it like gourmet cooking: start with high quality
ingredients and use only a small number of them. If you can identify an
ingredient by taste, then you’ve over used it.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: bakersfieldbiker
> > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:53 AM
> > To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re:
[FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> >
> >
> > Who is trying to do scientific work, I for one am trying to take pretty
pictures. :^)
> > I too am guilty of too much color at times. I am reprocessing all my images
to lessen that and improve color balance as well as contrast and detail. I am
doing this to try to make the images more realistic. But, honestly I find NB
images, with their false color to be garish and overprocessed looking. But that
is just my opinion and those that prefer this type of imaging, I applaud your
efforts.
> > Floyd
> >
> > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I’m with you on the garish and oversaturated assessment
> > >
> > > I personally despise overprocessed images and lately I seldom make
comments on posted images because they fall into that category
> > >
> > > So I’ve been not saying anything unless I have something nice
to say
> > >
> > > It seems that most overprocess; in some quarters that is the price of
admission into the clique: either you use all the photoshop tricks or you are
dogmeat
> > >
> > > There are at lest two problems with garishly overprocessed images: one is
that it fouls up perfectly good data that started out with scientific integrity.
The second and far more significant issue is that it pollutes the mind and
knowledge base with bad information and sets bad examples for what constitutes
good data processing that maintains scientific and ethical validity.
> > >
> > > The observation about Gresham’s Law causing a degradation in
the quality of knowledge in the age of the Internet when any one can post
anything about anything, irrespective of whether it it true or false has
certainly lead to a diminution of the scientific integrity of astro-images
> > >
> > > in order to be accepted as a “good” image you have
to destroy any semblance of integrity with wavelets, high pass filters,
deconvolution and piecing together composites otherwise the group-think and
group-comment is against you....
> > >
> > > No thanks guys, you can keep it if that is what it takes to be in the gang
> > >
> > > here’s a bit of academic wisdom on this topic for those that
concern themselves more with societal issues than things or celebrities,
television and sports:
> > >
> > > http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n01/finnell_j01.html
> > > Quoting:
> > >
> > > “Source credibility is the key to distinguishing between
information we should use and information we should dismiss. However, both
credible and non-credible sources circulate in our current information economy.
Expanding well beyond technology that which Boorstin could have conceived, in
the 21st century the profusion of information is bewildering. The Internet has
democratized the production of information and allowed everyone to participate
in its creation and dissemination. These factors, that make the Internet a
powerful means of disseminating good or credible information, are the same
characteristics that allow for bad and misleading information to become
widespread (Bates, Romina, Ahmed, & Hopson, 2006, p. 46).
> > >
> > > Before the advent of the information age, the task of assessing
credibility was much easier. Traditionally, information in print was executed by
a whole host of professionals (journalists, professors, editors, peer-reviewers)
ensuring quality of the information distributed. Since print information was
time consuming and expensive, the dissemination of good information was much
slower and hoarded by those who could afford it (universities, culture
institutions, journal subscribers). As a corollary, bad information
(non-credible information) was less ubiquitous. As a trade-off, less people were
afforded the opportunity to a voice in a system that restricted publication to
those with the means of production.
> > >
> > > The inverse is true today; more people are afforded the opportunity to
voice their opinion by publishing a Webpage online, but bad information is in
heavier circulation. In his book, The Long Tail, Chris Anderson colorfully
illustrates the information distribution on the Internet when he writes,
“with probabilistic systems there is only a statistical level of
quality, which is to say: some things will be great, some things will be
mediocre, and some things will be absolutely crappy” (Anderson, 2006,
p. 70). The Internet is not completely full of non-credible sources, just as it
is not always authoritative or trustworthy. With a nod toward the power of mass
collaboration and creation, Anderson states, “Give enough people the
capacity to create, and invariably gems will emerge.” (Anderson,
2006, p. 126)
> > >
> > > The unspoken issue, however, is that such gems may be buried under several
tons of rocks and gravel. For every Webpage constructed by experts with
extensively cited research, there are many more with little care for citation,
grammatical correctness or facts. Currently, both are circulating on the
marketplace of the Web with seemingly equally value. With information
dissemination readily available for instant distribution through Web publishing,
bad information obtained from a non-credible source is circulated back into the
system almost as quickly as it is created. The Internet magnifies
Giffen’s point that good and bad information will circulate together
as if they are both good when the circulation itself does not exceed the demand.
We are far from reaching our saturation point, as the number of blogs, Webpages
and social networking sites increase on a daily basis. Again, this
isn’t a problem depending on the information one is seeking, given
that information quality must consider the user’s needs. At the same
time, credibility is the crucial element of meta-information that all seekers of
information should be using to assess whether the information they are finding
is good or bad. With anyone given the ability to publish their ideas online,
your chances of finding bad information in proportion to good information are
fairly good. Yet, from accurate movie times to authoritative health information,
people are seeking good information from qualified sources.”
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: observe_m13
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:00 AM
> > > To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> > >
> > >
> > > M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has
a central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy has
one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other spirals are such
that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't there.
> > >
> > > As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated
and somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a gentle
breeze to a hurricane force wind.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> > > >
> > > > J
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people
present a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core
structures (which you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too
dull and unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range
goes, making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in
the core area.
> > > > >
> > > > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result
is still spectacular! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that
CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > > > Manuel.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I spoke with Jim at FLI about the Mac support issue.  FLI is coordinating with
Software Bisque in developing FLI compatability with the upcoming SkyX/X2
package on the Mac platform.  Timing is a little uncertain but it sounded like
he would post here when they get to that point.

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "Rob and Kelle" <stigandi2000@...>
wrote:
>
> Does the Atlas focuser work with any Mac platform software?  The guys that
created equinox image say that FLI hasn't released Mac drivers so they can't add
support. The SkyX camera add on also doesn't appear to talk to the Atlas.... 
Any feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>

Damn Richard, that is nice picture to my eye! There are some problems so I guess
it can't qualify as a really pretty picture. Maybe it is a pretty picture
without makeup? It certainly isn't homely! The most obvious artifact I see is a
purplish bar running vertically through the image just to the right of the
central bulge which is just under 10% of the total image width. A fainter one is
present in a mirrored position just to the left of the central bulge but I can
only see it on the lower portion of the image. There is still a bit of greenish
gradient glow present at the bottom of the image but you must have had some
really decent seeing for this photo! I think you might be able to call some of
those tiny dots stars! Your photo of M33 reminds me of some of the original
Hubble photos of M31 where he first identified Cepheid variables. Any ideas on
where that purplish vertical bar comes from or is it something to do with my
monitor or video card? I dragged the picture around to reduce the possibility it
could be my monitor and it seemed to stay in place in relationship to the
overall image.

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@...> wrote:
>
> just levels, curves and gradient removal
>
> http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/incoming/m33_ap155_pl39K_rgb_73x15minutes.jpg
>
> 18.25 hours at f/7 from a 20% QE camera with 39 million pixels
>
>
>
> From: Manuel
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:33 AM
> To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a comparison between my processed image, and just a stretch of the
> original integrated fit:
>
> http://i40.tinypic.com/nv9mpx.jpg
>
> M33 is nearly flat!.
>
> Regards,
> Manuel.
>
> --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "observe_m13"
> <JunkMailGoesHere@> wrote:
> >
> > M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has
> > a central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy
> > has one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other
> > spirals are such that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't
> > there.
> >
> > As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated
> > and somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a
> > gentle breeze to a hurricane force wind.
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > > >
> > > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people
> > > > present a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner
> > > > core structures (which you have done beautifully) the larger core
> > > > region is left too dull and unrealistically dim compared to the outer
> > > > areas as far as dynamic range goes, making the galaxy look flat rather
> > > > than having a bright glowing bulge in the core area.
> > > >
> > > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result
> > > > is still spectacular! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that
> > > > CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > > Manuel.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Richard,

What was done to balance the color channels?
A good pipeline of processing steps for calibration and color is available in
the 'THELI' package from Mischa Schirmer at Univ. Bonn (Germany)

http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~theli/

It's free of charge and works on Linux.

Clear Skies,
Gert

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@...> wrote:
>
> just levels, curves and gradient removal
>
> http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/incoming/m33_ap155_pl39K_rgb_73x15minutes.jpg
>
> 18.25 hours at f/7 from a 20% QE camera with 39 million pixels
>
>
>
> From: Manuel
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:33 AM
> To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a comparison between my processed image, and just a stretch of the
> original integrated fit:
>
> http://i40.tinypic.com/nv9mpx.jpg
>
> M33 is nearly flat!.
>
> Regards,
> Manuel.
>
> --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "observe_m13"
> <JunkMailGoesHere@> wrote:
> >
> > M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has
> > a central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy
> > has one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other
> > spirals are such that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't
> > there.
> >
> > As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated
> > and somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a
> > gentle breeze to a hurricane force wind.
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > > >
> > > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people
> > > > present a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner
> > > > core structures (which you have done beautifully) the larger core
> > > > region is left too dull and unrealistically dim compared to the outer
> > > > areas as far as dynamic range goes, making the galaxy look flat rather
> > > > than having a bright glowing bulge in the core area.
> > > >
> > > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result
> > > > is still spectacular! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that
> > > > CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > > Manuel.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Floyd

That's a very good way of looking at it. I agree as well, Specially that bit
about the subjectiveness of art.

  "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

Rouzbeh,


--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "bakersfieldbiker" <fblue@...>
wrote:
>
> HI Richard,
> Well I will agree, the truth is that many photos do look poor, including many
of yours that I have looked at in the past. Processing is an individual taste
and like all taste, not the same for everyone.
>
> I do not see how you feel that garish NB images, rich in greens and other
colors, are less over saturated or that they look better and show better
scientific data. High contrast between bandwidths does help to separate the
lines of emission with NB, but all those emission lines are also found in LRGB
photos. NB images tend to be very colorful and many are almost unbearable at
times for me ;^), but that is just my own opinion on color. Greyscale NB looks
very nice to me, like B&W photos from days gone by, but the false color images
are just not my cup of tea.
>
> Sometimes I feel that people get a little too self centered on their own
personal likes and dislikes as far as photography is concerned. But just like
art, there are many styles of painting, including impressionism, that do not
show reality, but rather the artists own conception of reality. I think that
astophotography is another form of art, maybe not science, but artistic
expression.
>
> I do think that colors do get over saturated by some, which does look a bit
loud and mistakes are made in processing like too much sharpening and contrast.
But, it is not easy to process LRGB and get perfection, it is a big learning
curve and takes years to master. I for one am trying very hard to master the
techniques to produce LRGB that is properly processed and present a pleasing but
also realistic view of an object. I am making progress, but it is an uphill
climb with a lot of time and effort envolved.
>
> Photoshop and other programs like PixInsight are tools, like an artists brush
and paints, that one can use to express your impressions of the universe. Like
all artistic expressions, the same object can be painted, but with different
styles, they are not carbon copies of each other. That is the beauty of art, you
are not trying to emulate nature or someone elses expression, but your own sense
of color and scale.
> Floyd
>
>
>
> --- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> >
> > I did not call your image crap
> >
> > I did lump it into a growing set that I collectively call crap because they
are:
> >
> > excellent data ruined by:
> >
> > 1) over sharpening/smoothing
> > 2) excessive manipulation/layering
> > 3) luminance layers made from a single emission line but overlaid over
broadband data
> > 4) overdone saturation
> >
> > in short we have the very unhappy situation of the ignorant teaching the
beginners utter rubbish yet represented as best known methods and things have so
far degraded that unless an image is a garish oversaturated testament to
misguided processing, it is deemed unworthy by the group-think.  I’ve seen one
completely unqualified person that writes a highly misguided column for
Astronomy that so excessively processes his data that noise spots are
transformed into galaxies...
> >
> > Let’s keep in mind that group-think brought us such wonderful additions to
our collective knowledge as
> > 1) the Earth is flat
> > 2) the Earth is the center of the universe
> > 3) one cannot supersede the speed of sound and live to tell about it
> >
> > A memorable comment by one of the team that processes Hubble images: “we
never know how our images will be used so we do not sharpen, smooth, clone stamp
or any of the other things amateurs do frequently: lest we find our image used
to “prove” a spaceship resides in the tail of a comet or other such silly
thing”
> >
> > perhaps the quote isn’t 100% accurate but the spirit of it is.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Manuel
> > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 12:03 PM
> > To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re:
[FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> >
> >
> > Dear Crisp,
> >
> > I'm not trying to be scientific in any way, just because I don't feel
atracted by science in this case. I'm trying to create a image that artistically
may impress someone.
> >
> > I kindly ask you not to call my images "crap" just because they are not
ethically perfect, as you said.
> >
> > The image of M27 was mine, and I spent about 10% of the capture time in
processing. And it was nothing else that a deconvolution, a merge of all the
channels (HaOIIRGB) and dynamic range compression. Do you know that when you
look though the telescope, your brain is doing that?. Why can't I do it?.
> >
> > By the way, what is reality?, what are the colors that should the objects
have. And the contrast?.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Manuel.
> >
> > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that irrespective of your personal intentions that once the
images are posted on a website they become available for anyone to see
> > >
> > > there are far more examples of badly processed images than there are good
ones with high levels of integrity and that’s the point of putting garish
oversaturated crap up on the internet and calling it a “pretty
picture”, whatever that means.
> > >
> > > I appreciate and sympathize with your goal of making pretty pictures. It
is what we are defining as “pretty” to which I take issue.
> > >
> > > when the majority of examples that pass the group-think test are garish
and overprocessed and deviate significantly from valid scientific integrity
(meaning things are real and aren’t artifacts that have become sharpened
and clone stamped into place), then there’s no easy to find quality
benchmark to which to aspire to emulate. Instead there are lot of things that
looked like a certain M27 image posted earlier in the year.... heavily
processed, far more time spent using photoshop than in actually gathering the
photons.
> > >
> > > I’ve notice in some cultures a benchmark of extreme beauty in women
may include excessive makeup (overprocessing), some to the point of looking
clown-like (garish) from the perspective of other cultures.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it is a cultural thing? I’ve certainly noticed a correlation.
> > >
> > > I suggest thinking of it like gourmet cooking: start with high quality
ingredients and use only a small number of them. If you can identify an
ingredient by taste, then you’ve over used it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: bakersfieldbiker
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:53 AM
> > > To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re:
[FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> > >
> > >
> > > Who is trying to do scientific work, I for one am trying to take pretty
pictures. :^)
> > > I too am guilty of too much color at times. I am reprocessing all my
images to lessen that and improve color balance as well as contrast and detail.
I am doing this to try to make the images more realistic. But, honestly I find
NB images, with their false color to be garish and overprocessed looking. But
that is just my opinion and those that prefer this type of imaging, I applaud
your efforts.
> > > Floyd
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I’m with you on the garish and oversaturated assessment
> > > >
> > > > I personally despise overprocessed images and lately I seldom make
comments on posted images because they fall into that category
> > > >
> > > > So I’ve been not saying anything unless I have something nice
to say
> > > >
> > > > It seems that most overprocess; in some quarters that is the price of
admission into the clique: either you use all the photoshop tricks or you are
dogmeat
> > > >
> > > > There are at lest two problems with garishly overprocessed images: one
is that it fouls up perfectly good data that started out with scientific
integrity. The second and far more significant issue is that it pollutes the
mind and knowledge base with bad information and sets bad examples for what
constitutes good data processing that maintains scientific and ethical validity.
> > > >
> > > > The observation about Gresham’s Law causing a degradation in
the quality of knowledge in the age of the Internet when any one can post
anything about anything, irrespective of whether it it true or false has
certainly lead to a diminution of the scientific integrity of astro-images
> > > >
> > > > in order to be accepted as a “good” image you have
to destroy any semblance of integrity with wavelets, high pass filters,
deconvolution and piecing together composites otherwise the group-think and
group-comment is against you....
> > > >
> > > > No thanks guys, you can keep it if that is what it takes to be in the
gang
> > > >
> > > > here’s a bit of academic wisdom on this topic for those that
concern themselves more with societal issues than things or celebrities,
television and sports:
> > > >
> > > > http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n01/finnell_j01.html
> > > > Quoting:
> > > >
> > > > “Source credibility is the key to distinguishing between
information we should use and information we should dismiss. However, both
credible and non-credible sources circulate in our current information economy.
Expanding well beyond technology that which Boorstin could have conceived, in
the 21st century the profusion of information is bewildering. The Internet has
democratized the production of information and allowed everyone to participate
in its creation and dissemination. These factors, that make the Internet a
powerful means of disseminating good or credible information, are the same
characteristics that allow for bad and misleading information to become
widespread (Bates, Romina, Ahmed, & Hopson, 2006, p. 46).
> > > >
> > > > Before the advent of the information age, the task of assessing
credibility was much easier. Traditionally, information in print was executed by
a whole host of professionals (journalists, professors, editors, peer-reviewers)
ensuring quality of the information distributed. Since print information was
time consuming and expensive, the dissemination of good information was much
slower and hoarded by those who could afford it (universities, culture
institutions, journal subscribers). As a corollary, bad information
(non-credible information) was less ubiquitous. As a trade-off, less people were
afforded the opportunity to a voice in a system that restricted publication to
those with the means of production.
> > > >
> > > > The inverse is true today; more people are afforded the opportunity to
voice their opinion by publishing a Webpage online, but bad information is in
heavier circulation. In his book, The Long Tail, Chris Anderson colorfully
illustrates the information distribution on the Internet when he writes,
“with probabilistic systems there is only a statistical level of
quality, which is to say: some things will be great, some things will be
mediocre, and some things will be absolutely crappy” (Anderson, 2006,
p. 70). The Internet is not completely full of non-credible sources, just as it
is not always authoritative or trustworthy. With a nod toward the power of mass
collaboration and creation, Anderson states, “Give enough people the
capacity to create, and invariably gems will emerge.” (Anderson,
2006, p. 126)
> > > >
> > > > The unspoken issue, however, is that such gems may be buried under
several tons of rocks and gravel. For every Webpage constructed by experts with
extensively cited research, there are many more with little care for citation,
grammatical correctness or facts. Currently, both are circulating on the
marketplace of the Web with seemingly equally value. With information
dissemination readily available for instant distribution through Web publishing,
bad information obtained from a non-credible source is circulated back into the
system almost as quickly as it is created. The Internet magnifies
Giffen’s point that good and bad information will circulate together
as if they are both good when the circulation itself does not exceed the demand.
We are far from reaching our saturation point, as the number of blogs, Webpages
and social networking sites increase on a daily basis. Again, this
isn’t a problem depending on the information one is seeking, given
that information quality must consider the user’s needs. At the same
time, credibility is the crucial element of meta-information that all seekers of
information should be using to assess whether the information they are finding
is good or bad. With anyone given the ability to publish their ideas online,
your chances of finding bad information in proportion to good information are
fairly good. Yet, from accurate movie times to authoritative health information,
people are seeking good information from qualified sources.”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: observe_m13
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:00 AM
> > > > To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe
has a central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy
has one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other spirals are
such that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't there.
> > > >
> > > > As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated
and somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a gentle
breeze to a hurricane force wind.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> > > > >
> > > > > J
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people
present a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core
structures (which you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too
dull and unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range
goes, making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in
the core area.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final
result is still spectacular! :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that
CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel"
<verti@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > > > > Manuel.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

 

I did not call your image crap

 

I did lump it into a growing set that I collectively call crap because they are:

 

excellent data ruined by:

 

1) over sharpening/smoothing

2) excessive manipulation/layering

3) luminance layers made from a single emission line but overlaid over broadband data

4) overdone saturation

 

in short we have the very unhappy situation of the ignorant teaching the beginners utter rubbish yet represented as best known methods and things have so far degraded that unless an image is a garish oversaturated testament to misguided processing, it is deemed unworthy by the group-think.  I’ve seen one completely unqualified person that writes a highly misguided column for Astronomy that so excessively processes his data that noise spots are transformed into galaxies...

 

Let’s keep in mind that group-think brought us such wonderful additions to our collective knowledge as

1) the Earth is flat

2) the Earth is the center of the universe

3) one cannot supersede the speed of sound and live to tell about it

 

A memorable comment by one of the team that processes Hubble images: “we never know how our images will be used so we do not sharpen, smooth, clone stamp or any of the other things amateurs do frequently: lest we find our image used to “prove” a spaceship resides in the tail of a comet or other such silly thing”

 

perhaps the quote isn’t 100% accurate but the spirit of it is.

 

 

 

From: Manuel

Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 12:03 PM

To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer

 

 

Dear Crisp,

I'm not trying to be scientific in any way, just because I don't feel atracted by science in this case. I'm trying to create a image that artistically may impress someone.

I kindly ask you not to call my images "crap" just because they are not ethically perfect, as you said.

The image of M27 was mine, and I spent about 10% of the capture time in processing. And it was nothing else that a deconvolution, a merge of all the channels (HaOIIRGB) and dynamic range compression. Do you know that when you look though the telescope, your brain is doing that?. Why can't I do it?.

By the way, what is reality?, what are the colors that should the objects have. And the contrast?.

Best regards,
Manuel.

--- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@...> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that irrespective of your personal intentions that once the images are posted on a website they become available for anyone to see
>
> there are far more examples of badly processed images than there are good ones with high levels of integrity and that’s the point of putting garish oversaturated crap up on the internet and calling it a “pretty picture”, whatever that means.
>
> I appreciate and sympathize with your goal of making pretty pictures. It is what we are defining as “pretty” to which I take issue.
>
> when the majority of examples that pass the group-think test are garish and overprocessed and deviate significantly from valid scientific integrity (meaning things are real and aren’t artifacts that have become sharpened and clone stamped into place), then there’s no easy to find quality benchmark to which to aspire to emulate. Instead there are lot of things that looked like a certain M27 image posted earlier in the year.... heavily processed, far more time spent using photoshop than in actually gathering the photons.
>
> I’ve notice in some cultures a benchmark of extreme beauty in women may include excessive makeup (overprocessing), some to the point of looking clown-like (garish) from the perspective of other cultures.
>
> Perhaps it is a cultural thing? I’ve certainly noticed a correlation.
>
> I suggest thinking of it like gourmet cooking: start with high quality ingredients and use only a small number of them. If you can identify an ingredient by taste, then you’ve over used it.
>
>
>
> From: bakersfieldbiker
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:53 AM
> To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
>
>
> Who is trying to do scientific work, I for one am trying to take pretty pictures. :^)
> I too am guilty of too much color at times. I am reprocessing all my images to lessen that and improve color balance as well as contrast and detail. I am doing this to try to make the images more realistic. But, honestly I find NB images, with their false color to be garish and overprocessed looking. But that is just my opinion and those that prefer this type of imaging, I applaud your efforts.
> Floyd
>
> --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> >
> > I’m with you on the garish and oversaturated assessment
> >
> > I personally despise overprocessed images and lately I seldom make comments on posted images because they fall into that category
> >
> > So I’ve been not saying anything unless I have something nice to say
> >
> > It seems that most overprocess; in some quarters that is the price of admission into the clique: either you use all the photoshop tricks or you are dogmeat
> >
> > There are at lest two problems with garishly overprocessed images: one is that it fouls up perfectly good data that started out with scientific integrity. The second and far more significant issue is that it pollutes the mind and knowledge base with bad information and sets bad examples for what constitutes good data processing that maintains scientific and ethical validity.
> >
> > The observation about Gresham’s Law causing a degradation in the quality of knowledge in the age of the Internet when any one can post anything about anything, irrespective of whether it it true or false has certainly lead to a diminution of the scientific integrity of astro-images
> >
> > in order to be accepted as a “good” image you have to destroy any semblance of integrity with wavelets, high pass filters, deconvolution and piecing together composites otherwise the group-think and group-comment is against you....
> >
> > No thanks guys, you can keep it if that is what it takes to be in the gang
> >
> > here’s a bit of academic wisdom on this topic for those that concern themselves more with societal issues than things or celebrities, television and sports:
> >
> > http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n01/finnell_j01.html
> > Quoting:
> >
> > “Source credibility is the key to distinguishing between information we should use and information we should dismiss. However, both credible and non-credible sources circulate in our current information economy. Expanding well beyond technology that which Boorstin could have conceived, in the 21st century the profusion of information is bewildering. The Internet has democratized the production of information and allowed everyone to participate in its creation and dissemination. These factors, that make the Internet a powerful means of disseminating good or credible information, are the same characteristics that allow for bad and misleading information to become widespread (Bates, Romina, Ahmed, & Hopson, 2006, p. 46).
> >
> > Before the advent of the information age, the task of assessing credibility was much easier. Traditionally, information in print was executed by a whole host of professionals (journalists, professors, editors, peer-reviewers) ensuring quality of the information distributed. Since print information was time consuming and expensive, the dissemination of good information was much slower and hoarded by those who could afford it (universities, culture institutions, journal subscribers). As a corollary, bad information (non-credible information) was less ubiquitous. As a trade-off, less people were afforded the opportunity to a voice in a system that restricted publication to those with the means of production.
> >
> > The inverse is true today; more people are afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion by publishing a Webpage online, but bad information is in heavier circulation. In his book, The Long Tail, Chris Anderson colorfully illustrates the information distribution on the Internet when he writes, “with probabilistic systems there is only a statistical level of quality, which is to say: some things will be great, some things will be mediocre, and some things will be absolutely crappy” (Anderson, 2006, p. 70). The Internet is not completely full of non-credible sources, just as it is not always authoritative or trustworthy. With a nod toward the power of mass collaboration and creation, Anderson states, “Give enough people the capacity to create, and invariably gems will emerge.” (Anderson, 2006, p. 126)
> >
> > The unspoken issue, however, is that such gems may be buried under several tons of rocks and gravel. For every Webpage constructed by experts with extensively cited research, there are many more with little care for citation, grammatical correctness or facts. Currently, both are circulating on the marketplace of the Web with seemingly equally value. With information dissemination readily available for instant distribution through Web publishing, bad information obtained from a non-credible source is circulated back into the system almost as quickly as it is created. The Internet magnifies Giffen’s point that good and bad information will circulate together as if they are both good when the circulation itself does not exceed the demand. We are far from reaching our saturation point, as the number of blogs, Webpages and social networking sites increase on a daily basis. Again, this isn’t a problem depending on the information one is seeking, given that information quality must consider the user’s needs. At the same time, credibility is the crucial element of meta-information that all seekers of information should be using to assess whether the information they are finding is good or bad. With anyone given the ability to publish their ideas online, your chances of finding bad information in proportion to good information are fairly good. Yet, from accurate movie times to authoritative health information, people are seeking good information from qualified sources.”
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: observe_m13
> > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:00 AM
> > To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> >
> >
> > M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe has a central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy has one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other spirals are such that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't there.
> >
> > As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally oversaturated and somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the waft of a gentle breeze to a hurricane force wind.
> >
> > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > > >
> > > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people present a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core structures (which you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too dull and unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range goes, making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in the core area.
> > > >
> > > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final result is still spectacular! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel" <verti@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > > Manuel.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Rouzbeh,
Thank you for your kind comments. I do feel that this is a form artistic
expression and I for one will leave the purest photos to the scientists, so they
may pursue their own results. But to me it is all about portaying the heavens in
living color, sometimes a little more than reality, but no the less beautiful.
Floyd

--- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "roozbeh_bid" <rbidshahri@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Floyd
>
> That's a very good way of looking at it. I agree as well, Specially that bit
about the subjectiveness of art.
>
>  "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>
> Rouzbeh,
>
>
> --- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, "bakersfieldbiker" <fblue@> wrote:
> >
> > HI Richard,
> > Well I will agree, the truth is that many photos do look poor, including
many of yours that I have looked at in the past. Processing is an individual
taste and like all taste, not the same for everyone.
> >
> > I do not see how you feel that garish NB images, rich in greens and other
colors, are less over saturated or that they look better and show better
scientific data. High contrast between bandwidths does help to separate the
lines of emission with NB, but all those emission lines are also found in LRGB
photos. NB images tend to be very colorful and many are almost unbearable at
times for me ;^), but that is just my own opinion on color. Greyscale NB looks
very nice to me, like B&W photos from days gone by, but the false color images
are just not my cup of tea.
> >
> > Sometimes I feel that people get a little too self centered on their own
personal likes and dislikes as far as photography is concerned. But just like
art, there are many styles of painting, including impressionism, that do not
show reality, but rather the artists own conception of reality. I think that
astophotography is another form of art, maybe not science, but artistic
expression.
> >
> > I do think that colors do get over saturated by some, which does look a bit
loud and mistakes are made in processing like too much sharpening and contrast.
But, it is not easy to process LRGB and get perfection, it is a big learning
curve and takes years to master. I for one am trying very hard to master the
techniques to produce LRGB that is properly processed and present a pleasing but
also realistic view of an object. I am making progress, but it is an uphill
climb with a lot of time and effort envolved.
> >
> > Photoshop and other programs like PixInsight are tools, like an artists
brush and paints, that one can use to express your impressions of the universe.
Like all artistic expressions, the same object can be painted, but with
different styles, they are not carbon copies of each other. That is the beauty
of art, you are not trying to emulate nature or someone elses expression, but
your own sense of color and scale.
> > Floyd
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did not call your image crap
> > >
> > > I did lump it into a growing set that I collectively call crap because
they are:
> > >
> > > excellent data ruined by:
> > >
> > > 1) over sharpening/smoothing
> > > 2) excessive manipulation/layering
> > > 3) luminance layers made from a single emission line but overlaid over
broadband data
> > > 4) overdone saturation
> > >
> > > in short we have the very unhappy situation of the ignorant teaching the
beginners utter rubbish yet represented as best known methods and things have so
far degraded that unless an image is a garish oversaturated testament to
misguided processing, it is deemed unworthy by the group-think.  I’ve seen one
completely unqualified person that writes a highly misguided column for
Astronomy that so excessively processes his data that noise spots are
transformed into galaxies...
> > >
> > > Let’s keep in mind that group-think brought us such wonderful additions
to our collective knowledge as
> > > 1) the Earth is flat
> > > 2) the Earth is the center of the universe
> > > 3) one cannot supersede the speed of sound and live to tell about it
> > >
> > > A memorable comment by one of the team that processes Hubble images: “we
never know how our images will be used so we do not sharpen, smooth, clone stamp
or any of the other things amateurs do frequently: lest we find our image used
to “prove” a spaceship resides in the tail of a comet or other such silly
thing”
> > >
> > > perhaps the quote isn’t 100% accurate but the spirit of it is.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Manuel
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 12:03 PM
> > > To: FLI_Imaging_Systems@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re:
[FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Crisp,
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be scientific in any way, just because I don't feel
atracted by science in this case. I'm trying to create a image that artistically
may impress someone.
> > >
> > > I kindly ask you not to call my images "crap" just because they are not
ethically perfect, as you said.
> > >
> > > The image of M27 was mine, and I spent about 10% of the capture time in
processing. And it was nothing else that a deconvolution, a merge of all the
channels (HaOIIRGB) and dynamic range compression. Do you know that when you
look though the telescope, your brain is doing that?. Why can't I do it?.
> > >
> > > By the way, what is reality?, what are the colors that should the objects
have. And the contrast?.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Manuel.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that irrespective of your personal intentions that once the
images are posted on a website they become available for anyone to see
> > > >
> > > > there are far more examples of badly processed images than there are
good ones with high levels of integrity and that’s the point of putting
garish oversaturated crap up on the internet and calling it a “pretty
picture”, whatever that means.
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate and sympathize with your goal of making pretty pictures. It
is what we are defining as “pretty” to which I take issue.
> > > >
> > > > when the majority of examples that pass the group-think test are garish
and overprocessed and deviate significantly from valid scientific integrity
(meaning things are real and aren’t artifacts that have become sharpened
and clone stamped into place), then there’s no easy to find quality
benchmark to which to aspire to emulate. Instead there are lot of things that
looked like a certain M27 image posted earlier in the year.... heavily
processed, far more time spent using photoshop than in actually gathering the
photons.
> > > >
> > > > I’ve notice in some cultures a benchmark of extreme beauty in women
may include excessive makeup (overprocessing), some to the point of looking
clown-like (garish) from the perspective of other cultures.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps it is a cultural thing? I’ve certainly noticed a
correlation.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest thinking of it like gourmet cooking: start with high quality
ingredients and use only a small number of them. If you can identify an
ingredient by taste, then you’ve over used it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: bakersfieldbiker
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:53 AM
> > > > To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Gresham's Law and garishly overprocessed images Re:
[FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Who is trying to do scientific work, I for one am trying to take pretty
pictures. :^)
> > > > I too am guilty of too much color at times. I am reprocessing all my
images to lessen that and improve color balance as well as contrast and detail.
I am doing this to try to make the images more realistic. But, honestly I find
NB images, with their false color to be garish and overprocessed looking. But
that is just my opinion and those that prefer this type of imaging, I applaud
your efforts.
> > > > Floyd
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, <rdcrisp@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I’m with you on the garish and oversaturated assessment
> > > > >
> > > > > I personally despise overprocessed images and lately I seldom make
comments on posted images because they fall into that category
> > > > >
> > > > > So I’ve been not saying anything unless I have something
nice to say
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that most overprocess; in some quarters that is the price of
admission into the clique: either you use all the photoshop tricks or you are
dogmeat
> > > > >
> > > > > There are at lest two problems with garishly overprocessed images: one
is that it fouls up perfectly good data that started out with scientific
integrity. The second and far more significant issue is that it pollutes the
mind and knowledge base with bad information and sets bad examples for what
constitutes good data processing that maintains scientific and ethical validity.
> > > > >
> > > > > The observation about Gresham’s Law causing a degradation
in the quality of knowledge in the age of the Internet when any one can post
anything about anything, irrespective of whether it it true or false has
certainly lead to a diminution of the scientific integrity of astro-images
> > > > >
> > > > > in order to be accepted as a “good” image you
have to destroy any semblance of integrity with wavelets, high pass filters,
deconvolution and piecing together composites otherwise the group-think and
group-comment is against you....
> > > > >
> > > > > No thanks guys, you can keep it if that is what it takes to be in the
gang
> > > > >
> > > > > here’s a bit of academic wisdom on this topic for those
that concern themselves more with societal issues than things or celebrities,
television and sports:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n01/finnell_j01.html
> > > > > Quoting:
> > > > >
> > > > > “Source credibility is the key to distinguishing between
information we should use and information we should dismiss. However, both
credible and non-credible sources circulate in our current information economy.
Expanding well beyond technology that which Boorstin could have conceived, in
the 21st century the profusion of information is bewildering. The Internet has
democratized the production of information and allowed everyone to participate
in its creation and dissemination. These factors, that make the Internet a
powerful means of disseminating good or credible information, are the same
characteristics that allow for bad and misleading information to become
widespread (Bates, Romina, Ahmed, & Hopson, 2006, p. 46).
> > > > >
> > > > > Before the advent of the information age, the task of assessing
credibility was much easier. Traditionally, information in print was executed by
a whole host of professionals (journalists, professors, editors, peer-reviewers)
ensuring quality of the information distributed. Since print information was
time consuming and expensive, the dissemination of good information was much
slower and hoarded by those who could afford it (universities, culture
institutions, journal subscribers). As a corollary, bad information
(non-credible information) was less ubiquitous. As a trade-off, less people were
afforded the opportunity to a voice in a system that restricted publication to
those with the means of production.
> > > > >
> > > > > The inverse is true today; more people are afforded the opportunity to
voice their opinion by publishing a Webpage online, but bad information is in
heavier circulation. In his book, The Long Tail, Chris Anderson colorfully
illustrates the information distribution on the Internet when he writes,
“with probabilistic systems there is only a statistical level of
quality, which is to say: some things will be great, some things will be
mediocre, and some things will be absolutely crappy” (Anderson, 2006,
p. 70). The Internet is not completely full of non-credible sources, just as it
is not always authoritative or trustworthy. With a nod toward the power of mass
collaboration and creation, Anderson states, “Give enough people the
capacity to create, and invariably gems will emerge.” (Anderson,
2006, p. 126)
> > > > >
> > > > > The unspoken issue, however, is that such gems may be buried under
several tons of rocks and gravel. For every Webpage constructed by experts with
extensively cited research, there are many more with little care for citation,
grammatical correctness or facts. Currently, both are circulating on the
marketplace of the Web with seemingly equally value. With information
dissemination readily available for instant distribution through Web publishing,
bad information obtained from a non-credible source is circulated back into the
system almost as quickly as it is created. The Internet magnifies
Giffen’s point that good and bad information will circulate together
as if they are both good when the circulation itself does not exceed the demand.
We are far from reaching our saturation point, as the number of blogs, Webpages
and social networking sites increase on a daily basis. Again, this
isn’t a problem depending on the information one is seeking, given
that information quality must consider the user’s needs. At the same
time, credibility is the crucial element of meta-information that all seekers of
information should be using to assess whether the information they are finding
is good or bad. With anyone given the ability to publish their ideas online,
your chances of finding bad information in proportion to good information are
fairly good. Yet, from accurate movie times to authoritative health information,
people are seeking good information from qualified sources.”
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: observe_m13
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:00 AM
> > > > > To: mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [FLI_Imaging_Systems] Re: M33, bye bye Summer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > M33 like pretty much every other spiral galaxy in the visible universe
has a central bulge. Some are small, others are large, but every spiral galaxy
has one. Just because the orientation of this galaxy and most other spirals are
such that they cannot be clearly 'seen' doesn't mean it isn't there.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to the image Mike is commenting upon, I find it equally
oversaturated and somewhat garish, but that is just my opinion. I prefer the
waft of a gentle breeze to a hurricane force wind.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, Dvj <dvj@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M33 does mot have a central bulge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:22 AM, "Michael" <m.sidonio@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wow what a corker! Amazing result!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing I'd say is that, as is often the case when people
present a bright galaxy like this, in the quest to reveal the inner core
structures (which you have done beautifully) the larger core region is left too
dull and unrealistically dim compared to the outer areas as far as dynamic range
goes, making the galaxy look flat rather than having a bright glowing bulge in
the core area.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A minor point probably (and there is no law here) as the final
result is still spectacular! :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gee there are some nice shots on your web site Manuel, that
CDK17-Pl16803 combo is really singing!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:FLI_Imaging_Systems%40yahoogroups.com, "Manuel"
<verti@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the last one from the prolific Summer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M33-The-Triangulum-Galaxy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hope you like it,
> > > > > > > > Manuel.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

http://www.astrophotogallery.org/floyd-27s-pics/p8431-ic-1795-lrgb28reprocessed-\
29.html

I am attempting to reprocess my data with more control and respect for nature.
My colors are more muted, but still present in abundance. Details are brought
out as fully as my data allows and contrast between colors and emmissions I try
to preserve.

I would like honest opinions, positive or negative on this. If you dislike it,
please explain why, the same if you do like it.

Honestly, I am trying to learn to do the best I can with LRGB and produce photos
that are pleasing and yet still maintain the integrity of the data and image.
Floyd

 

http://www.astrophotogallery.org/floyd-27s-pics/p8431-ic-1795-lrgb28reprocessed-29.html

I am attempting to reprocess my data with more control and respect for nature. My colors are more muted, but still present in abundance. Details are brought out as fully as my data allows and contrast between colors and emmissions I try to preserve.

I would like honest opinions, positive or negative on this. If you dislike it, please explain why, the same if you do like it.

Honestly, I am trying to learn to do the best I can with LRGB and produce photos that are pleasing and yet still maintain the integrity of the data and image.
Floyd

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2092/4602 - Release Date: 11/07/11