 Kay Beausoleil |
No POTD Today -- Try This! Since there's no POTD at BP today, thought I'd post this link for those of you who need a fix. Anyone care to critique the DOF or the croping? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060206.html
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
I'm not liking the tight crop and a tad more DOF would have been suffice to get those back stars in focus. and a smaller aperture might have given us a little 'starburst' for added impact. overall mediocre color rendition, and lost detail in the shadows. decent work for the photog, maybe a nicer one next time. how's that kay?!? lol. actually I love it, its an awesome picture. i'm a sucker for all those nebula shots and whatnot, they are just amazing. makes you wonder...'in a universe that never ends, and earth being only a tiny pinpoint of even this galaxy, how in the world (well universe for technicalities!) can we declare to be the only life-beings.' there's gotta be something out there!
|
|
|
|
||
|
A C |
I love those kind of pictures too! FYI, I saw an article in the New York Times the other day about Scientists editing these kind of pictures too much. They might make some things look larger or do contrast adjustments and accidentally lose something. Not all of them go overboard but some do. Should there be regulations? Hmm, it is science you know. Just thought I'd share that because the beautiful picture you posted reminded me of the article.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
LOL, Justin, that 1,000 light year crop *is* tight, I agree! Cherylann, all these colourful deep space photographs are composites. Personally, I'm not too bent out of shape about post manipulation if it helps to understand what's out there; I find them thrilling. For that particular image, here's a link which explains the photographic processing work: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/phot-31-03.html
|
|
|
|
||
|
A C |
I hope I didn't lead you to think that I'm completely against the manipulations. If the color correcting and corrections of levels helps people "understand what's out there" (which it does) then I'm for it as well. And they are just fascinating to look at . . . more glorious than what an artist can paint or draw. I should have more specific about the problem with manipulations. If these photos are being filed and used for other scientists to reference then stars shouldn't be made to look larger than they really are and careful attention to detail must be maintained when editing. But for the rest of us who aren't scientists and aren't mapping out the universe, I think that the manipulations help us see the bigger picture and recognize the beauty beyond.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
Cherylann, it would be hard to disagree with what you're saying. And it just goes to show that discussions on manipulating photographs aren't limited to planet Earth.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||