H-Alpha Images from 05/10/14

Tej, Mike, thanks for your comments, but what is natural in Astro Imaging?? Apart from a Sun set when is the Sun ever yellow? However it seems to be the colour of choice for many yet the one on the right is closer to H-Alpha (apart from the proms which I left white for 'effect'). For me its just trying to get a balance between what looks right and enhances the detail and I guess, as ever with the opinions cast so far, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I like the effect of the inverted image but there is something not right about the shadow being on the wrong side of the prominence!

As for focus at infinity, that is itself a contradiction. What is infinity focus exactly? An AF lens is designed to move past it for instance! Tej, your PST only has a focal length of 400mm so its depth of field will be significantly greater than at 3400mm but at 400mm with a 40mm objective there probably isn't the resolution to see the difference in focus either.  With your 5x I am sure you have to fine tune focus though. A Sun spot in the middle of the Sun would certainly need different focus to the limb.

The tuning is a different thing because that deals with wing shift and Sun spots are below the Chromosphere, so you are adjusting the CWL to see those more clearly at the expense of other features.

what is natural in Astro Imaging??

A good question! I guess the techniques most commonly used to process photos become 'the norm' and then this, in turn, is what gets considered as 'natural'.

With this thought in mind, looking at your three photos, for me, the inexperienced astrophotographer, my preferred choice is the yellow one on the left. It feels most 'natural' to me because this is what I've been conditioned to see.

Going off on a tangent here… But that's my two penn'orth. Right, off to find the rest of my herd…

If you think about it no photography is natural.  Colours are rendered by electronic means now a days but in past through chemicals on film.  Often then not the images produced would be a close approximation of the colours in reality. In processing we then manipulate the image further.  Is not the issue what is the image for?  Surely the viewer of the image is the one interpreting it from their own perspective.

Images can be for art, for representation, for scientific interest or even just the pleasure of taking the photograph.  My position is that the image should be judge on it's merits and not from a preconceived notion of natural. Example I really love Sumitra's windmill photos from an artistic point of view, Rupert's images, recently shown on here, I like  from a scientific view point but they still work as artistic to me.

Very well put, Brian. I think that's a great argument.

Thanks Mike.

I think that’s a great argument.

And I agree! However, isn't any work of art interpreted from the viewer's own perspective? A piece of art hanging on a wall in an art gallery, for example, will first arouse an emotional connection with the observer who will then pause to admire it and then perhaps read the accompanying description. Can't tell you how many times I've read a description next to a work of art and though, 'what are they on about?!' Sure I'm not alone in that… But it goes to show how different individual perspectives will draw meaning differently on the same subject.

I absolutely agree that your interpretation of the work displayed changes if you consider what the image is for in the first instance. From an artistic perspective, Rupert's yellow Sun, to me, is the most beautiful of the three. My reasoning? Most images of the Sun that I've seen are processed to offer a similar visual result to this. I make sense of the image because I've seen other images similar to this in order to compare it to. We make meaning of things based upon past experience (we do this from early on in childhood too - it's how we learn). It offers me something to relate it to as you are not able to see the Sun with this detail with the naked eye and so I am able to appreciate the beauty of the image as a whole and then admire the skill needed to capture it.

If we were to look at Rupert's photos from a scientific perspective, then of course, you'd be looking to make meaning from other aspects of it.

Christina of course it applies to any work of art but the discussion was about photographic images. It is true to say that past experiences have an effect on your outlook on life in general, as Marx said " being determines consciousness", but experience happens to us all the time so your interpretation and perspective can and will be changed.  As we gain more insight through increased knowledge and experience so our view of things will develop.  The very act of viewing will impact on your perception.

I am just arguing that all of your life experiences from the time of your birth up to the very second you look at the image and after will impact on your perspective and interpretation of an image.  Reading and thinking about the discussion in this post will impact on you.

The very act of viewing will impact on your perception.

Now look, there's no need to bring quantum mechanics into this discussion 😉

Unavoidable Mike.  Though of course the change is upon the brain rather than the image.  I think the evolution of the meme is the issue here.  http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc ="s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMeme&ei=MDA0VMbGCIntaN7igJgL&usg=AFQjCNHA_FbHxCjS5gzhB-C_SYzuAg-Uwg&sig2=iRx7uvvQrpfIRi3XsydMAQ"

Christina of course it applies to any work of art but the discussion was about photographic images.

Absolutely! My thought here were from the perspective of photography viewed as an art form!

..experience happens to us all the time so your interpretation and perspective can and will be changed. As we gain more insight through increased knowledge and experience so our view of things will develop.

Also true. This however takes time... It takes time to change opinions. They don't just change over night! My argument is that your average non-astro obsessed person would expect to view something similar to what's been shown to them in the past in order to be able to make sense of what they are seeing initially. After they've understood and made sense of it, then offering a new interpretation of the same image, may be insightful which could later change perspectives.

I disagree that it can take time to change opinion.  For example I had always in the past found Ansel Adams images overly romantic and idealistic.  That changed to appreciation after viewing the exhibition at NMM.  That took about an hour.

Interestingly, the example you give is of something that you had previously formed an opinion of. Your experience with the NMM exhibit however poses a new question - is the delivery of a new idea/perspective important in changing opinion? 🙂

As I said before all experiences will impact on your Perception and interpretation of an image, work of art, life question etc.  each day you are subjected to new experiences that will impact on your outlook.