Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos

[Sean Walker <vze2c3z8@mail.verizon.net>]

the raw, un-manipulated film shots are science worthy, not tweaked for
display purposes. CCD images can be flat field and Dark Frame callibrated,
but that's all- no hot or dead pixel removal.

Sean Walker

> From: Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>
> Reply-To: astro-photo@seds.org
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:01:27 -0800
> To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Subject: [APML] Science in Astrophotos
> 
> List,
> 
> Since the discussion has once again turned to art or science in
> astrophotography, I have some questions for all of you.
> 
> What sort of an astrophoto would qualify as science in your opinion?
> 
> How does one recognize an astrophoto that qualifies as science
> compared to one that does not?
> 
> Are the many HST color images we see science? If so, why are they
> science and ours are not science, especially our CCD images?
> 
> Chuck <aa6g@aa6g.org>
> 
> 
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
> Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>


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