Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos

[Torsten Clay <tclay@theriver.com>]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Chuck Vaughn wrote:

> 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?

An astrophoto that was taken to answer a specific scientific question or
help prove/disprove a theory or idea.


>
> How does one recognize an astrophoto that qualifies as science
> compared to one that does not?
>

Is there a presentation with the image that explains how the image expands
our knowledge of the universe? Has some new phenomena been discovered
through analyzing the image? Was the photo taken with that intent?


> Are the many HST color images we see science? If so, why are they
> science and ours are not science, especially our CCD images?
>

Most of the publically released HST images are just for PR.

It takes more than technical perfection to do science. The important (and
hard) part is to come up with a question (that has not been answered
already!) that the image can shed light on :)

Torsten


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