Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pharisaeus t1_j1nxfew wrote

Reply to comment by Line---- in My progress at Astrophotography by steliosmudda

A completely failed analogy, since I'm not saying someone has to build the camera with their bare hands.

Imagine you bough a flute and also a robot which is playing this flute. And you're essentially choosing the music sheets, tuning the instrument and picking the right place to play the music. This is pretty much what is happening here.

−2

Line---- t1_j1og6kw wrote

Analogies are usually exaggerated to prove a point. While mine isn’t 1:1, I still don’t think you are correct.

I don’t see how using someone else’s program means this image is “not their work”. He used a tool, to do a job. It takes skills to use that tool.

Yes, anyone can theoretically learn how to do things like this, but anyone can also learn how to play the flute.

Building on your adjustment to my analogy, I’d say that maybe rather than having a robot play the music you have selected, this would be more like writing the music yourself. Not something anyone can do with ease.

5

TurChunkin t1_j1o5wkq wrote

Unless you actually have the ability to produce an image like this from start to finish, you're just guessing. Your attempt at the robot analogy is failed, because you *don't actually know* how to create an image like this, you're just assuming that if you spent the money, you could do it too because *it's just as easy as telling a robot to do it.*

3

_insomagent t1_j1o750z wrote

I don't know why people think astrophotography processing is difficult. The hardest part of astrophotography is obtaining the money required to acquire a guided mount with minimal bearing play, decent apochromatic scope, autoguider, software for said autoguider.

Anybody can learn how to adjust curves in Photoshop or run a script that uses somebody else's algorithm to make stars look smaller. I'd love to hear a counterpoint to this.

1

MineTorA t1_j1pco4l wrote

It's immediately obvious that you have no idea what goes into the processing of astrophotos. It's not just running scripts and adjusting curves. It's not worth the time writing out a "counterpoint", people who have dedicated thousands of hours have told you it's not a simple matter. If you don't believe it, give it a try, JWST data is available for free.

3

_insomagent t1_j1ptjxc wrote

I have an "entry level" setup that cost me around $2000.

Your photos are great.

I saw your setup, pretty good stuff. Equipment you used, and the price points:

TS-Optics Photoline 80mm APO Triplet ($800)
QHY 163M ($1199)
SkyWatcher EQ6-R Pro ($2000)
ZWO ASI 120MM ($134)
ZWO EAF ($248)
ZWO EFW ($269)
Optolong 7nm Ha, 6.5nm Oiii, 6.5nm Sii filters ($720 for a 3 piece kit)

So you spent... around $5,370 to take these stunning photos. That's not even taking into account what you spent on software, which is more than likely equal in value.

I could show you the images I captured with my $2,000 setup, but they aren't great, and of course my wife wasn't happy with how much I spent on this hobby. However, I'm not going to do that, because of course you're going to shit all over it with your $10,000 setup. I'm so frustrated with this talking point about "processing" skill, I'm going to download some raw data, and show you just how easy this shit is.

Take a look here:

https://astrobackyard.com/astrophotography-image-processing-challenge/

Without looking at the end of Trevor Jones' blog page, tell me which one is done by him and which one is me fucking around in GIMP for 30 minutes. https://imgur.com/a/bOTVx5g

When you're ready, scroll to the end of Trevor Jones' blog post and see if your guess was correct.

−2

Pharisaeus t1_j1o772x wrote

> because you don't actually know how to create an image like this,

I actually do. I happened to write astronomical data processing software, although for telescopes orders of magnitude bigger than what OP is using here. Anyway, OP said himself that 90% of it is image processing this is why I asked if he actually is the author of this "image processing" he's referring to. Because it's not a manual process, just as making hundreds of photos for stacking or taking calibrations is also not a manual process either - you literally buy a special robot to track the target on the sky for you.

Of course it involves spending time and having the skills to setup all of this, and clearly OP got some really nice results, I'm not denying that! But let's be clear on which parts of the process require skill and which require money.

−2

MineTorA t1_j1pda2j wrote

You honestly just sound like you're butthurt that people using software instead of writing it are getting credit. What kind of inane gatekeeping nonsense are you peddling? Processing astrophotos is an art, and the software we use are the tools. Photography is an expensive art yes, and astrophotography can be more expensive still, but you can spend ten grand on a setup and never produce more than a blur if you don't know how to use the equipment and software. Meanwhile someone with the know-how can use an unmodified DSLR with a kit lens and barn door tracker and get great results. Why do we have to "write the imaging processor"?

2

Pharisaeus t1_j1pqvag wrote

> Why do we have to "write the imaging processor"?

You don't. It was OP himself who said processing is 90% of the work and skill, but in reality majority of processing is done automatically.

0