[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] Muddying the water a bit (Was: A little M31 & M45)
Well Hello Mr. Gendler,
I love it when you guys can condense an idea down to a single paragraph
such as your second below Rob. I do not seem to be able to do that yet, nor
can I and my machine leave an empty spaced line where I intended it between
the b.) paragraph and its following paragraph. I hate it when that
happens!!!
Agreed in totality though.
But do you think a really dead "background" can be "too" smooth?
Also, and I know this can be blasphemy on the APML, can it really be "too
black", (though I wouldn't want it completely black but also don't want to
pick up man-made light pollution or much oxygen sky glow really either) if
there is no discernable signal there? I don't really, completely that is,
at least at this point.
Jim Vineyard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Gendler" <robgendler@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] Muddying the water a bit (Was: A little M31 & M45)
> Well here comes my two cents if anyone's interested.
> I think noise reduction has been taken too far in many cases.
> Some images I've seen have been subjected to so much noise
> reduction they look wax-like. I think it detracts from the image.
> I would much rather see some grain/noise.
>
> The art to noise reduction really has to do with getting the reduction
> where its needed (low S/N areas) and not applying it to the entire image.
> I don't think it matters which software program one uses. They basically
> all work the same IMO. What matters is using it with precision.
>
>
> Rob Gendler
> email: robgendler@att.net
> Web Site: http://www.robgendlerastropics.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Vineyard" <deepskyphotos@hotmail.com>
> To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:23 AM
> Subject: [APML] Muddying the water a bit (Was: A little M31 & M45)
>
>
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've had a couple of observations on my mind for quite some time now
> > (years actually). To me it seems there are at least two genres (types)
> > of
> > astrophotographers:
> >
> > a.) Those who wish to portray astro-objects as real "Photographs" of
> > the
> > sky, taken from the ground, through the atmosphere.
> >
> > b.) And those who wish to portray the object "as if it matches the
> > magnification". As though seen from a viewpoint in space equal to the
> > magnification or even lack thereof (The kind I like to do especially in
> long
> > focal length). This would obviously be a photographic illusion.
> > However one can easily argue all types of photographs/images are in
> > fact
> > illusion, just zoom-in, for but one. Not to mention extraneous
> theoretical
> > and real considerations of that old bugger true color, nebula dispersion
> as
> > one moves towards them, and the anthropomorphic aristocentrism we place
> > on
> > plain old electromagnetic radiation to name only a few.
> >
> > But since we're really creating this stuff for only human consumption
> (so
> > far as I know), we want it to be realistic, however we portray the
> > humanly
> > visible slice of the electromagnetic spectrum (but then we all cheat on
> that
> > too in astrophotography).
> > All that said, at my point along the road, I still prefer and use Mike
> > Cook's original "grain reduction technique" with it's masking of
> > brighter
> > areas in Picture Window and then make the (actually smooth black to 3
> > degrees Kelvin) background as grainless as I can get it, for realism,
> > you
> > understand. (Although Juan's software definitely still resides on my
> > hard
> > drive since it is a fine piece of software and has its uses depending on
> the
> > photo, each of which still seems unique to me during processing
> > attempts.)
> > So if we're churning out these fine illusions of reality, as if seen
> > by
> > some better human eye, then to me they should be absolutely grainless in
> > appearance (up to the needed point of preserving any available real
> detail)
> > since human vision does not perceive the world as grainy.
> > Now imagine there really are not only a and b above (classic duality),
> but
> > really a spectrum, and in this case, of astrophotographers.
> >
> >
> > Jim Vineyard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scott Hammonds" <shammonds@creatorsview.com>
> > To: "'Wei-Hao Wang'" <whwang@gmail.com>; "'Discussion of Film
> > Astrophotography'" <astro-photo@seds.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:08 PM
> > Subject: RE: [APML] A little M31 & M45
> >
> >
> > > Wei-Hao, Stuart, Chris S, Jose,
> > > Thank you all for the nice comments. I am happy with the M31, it is
> > > without
> > > question my best effort on this object. Although the M45 is probably
> also
> > > my
> > > best effort on this object, I'm still not satisfied. I appreciate the
> all
> > > of
> > > the comments on smoothing.
> > >
> > > For the most part I think less is better. There is definitely a line
> that
> > > can be crossed for to much and this is probably a matter of taste. In
> my
> > > M45, it seems close so I'll give it another try. Thanks again.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > Scott Hammonds
> > > www.creatorsview.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wei-Hao Wang [mailto:whwang@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:26 PM
> > > To: Discussion of Film Astrophotography
> > > Subject: Re: [APML] A little M31 & M45
> > >
> > > Scott, those are beautiful images. I especially like the colors.
> > >
> > > As for the smoothing issue, I don't think Scott's images are too
> > > smooth
> or
> > > artificial at all. The look very nice. However, in general, I do
> prefer
> > > images with a little noise/grain left.
> > >
> > > In an image, usually the faintest areas are full of noise/grain and
> > > the
> > > very
> > > bright pixels are real signals. However, the transition between noise
> and
> > > low level signal is continuous. There is always a brightness range
> where
> > > noise and low level signal coexist and cannot exactly tell what is
> noise.
> > > When we look at such an area, our eyes are annoyed by the noise but
> > > can
> > > still recognize some pattern which may well be real signal. I like to
> > > protect such an area from being smoothed.
> > > Otherwise I lose those signals and the image looks too smooth.
> > >
> > > My $0.02.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Wei-Hao
> > >
> > > --
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > Wei-Hao Wang :)
> > >
> > > Institute for Astronomy at University of Hawaii
> > >
> > > Address:
> > > 2680 Woodlawn Drive Personal Website:
> > > Honolulu, HI 96822 http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Astro-Photo mailing list
> > > Astro-Photo@seds.org
> > > http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Astro-Photo mailing list
> > > Astro-Photo@seds.org
> > > http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Astro-Photo mailing list
> > Astro-Photo@seds.org
> > http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo