Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pharisaeus t1_j1o772x wrote

Reply to comment by TurChunkin in My progress at Astrophotography by steliosmudda

> 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