Re: [APML] Going to the Luminance side?

[lkt <tan@cox.net>]

	I think one reason there has not been many widefield CCD images is the
presence of bright stars within the field. I have to use an aesthetic
argument here as I find the bloomed stars to not be too pleasing. Many
times it is not merely just editing out a spike. The bright star causes
some unusual looking halos around a bright star which can be difficult
to process out. The logarithmic response of film makes saturation appear
more subdued and aesthetic. This is certainly a personal preference.
There has been many widefield H-alpha CCD shots as the H-alpha filter
significantly suppresses the bright stars and make them more pleasing to
the eye. 

Loke






------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby,
A few other points I'd like to make. One is that you guys here
on APML are for the most part pretty isolated. I participate 
on the CCD lists too so I know where the cutting edge of CCD is.
People are now doing widefield milkyway shots that are very comparable
to the film images I've seen here. Its only a matter of time. Actually I
plan on
doing some widefield Milkyway CCD mosaics this summer.
My second point is that quality CCD work can be accomplished from
areas with horrendous light pollution. This is simply impossible with
film.
My skies are mag 4.5 on the best nights. My last point is how many
nights 
of imaging did it take to make your Rosette mosaic or your M31 Bobby?
Rob Gendler
Email: robgendler@att.net
Web site: http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/

--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>