Re: [APML]: Computer Enhancement

[Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>]

celstar@wi.frontiercomm.net wrote:
>  
> I have been struggling with some aspects of photo enhancement
> myself. Every time I see an "excellent" astro image, then read that
> it was computer enhanced, my heart sinks a little. I realize it is a
> fine line that can be reasoned both ways.

Every astrophoto you've ever seen has been enhanced. A non-enhanced
astrophoto would look like what you see in the eyepiece or like
an unprocessed CCD image - not much. 
 
> A recent posting said that computer enhancement can turn a so-so
> image into a great image.

I must have missed that post but I don't think you can make a so-so
image into a great one. You can stretch contrast, stack negatives,
increase color saturation - all things that can be done in the
darkroom - but you can't take a 5 arcsecond photo and turn it into
a 1 arcsecond photo. So far I haven't seen any photos with field
rotation or flexure removed, although that may happen.

For some reason there's an aversion to computer processing images
even if the processing does the same things that have been done in
the darkroom for sometime. I don't see why making the techniques
easier and thus making them available to more people should be
construed to be bad.

Chuck  <aa6g@aa6g.org>