Loading…
15
My friend said 'processed astro photos aren't real astronomy' and it got me thinking
We were looking at my shot of the Orion Nebula from my backyard in Austin, the one I stacked 45 frames for. He said all the color and detail from editing makes it fake science. I argued that processing just reveals what the sensor captured, like developing film. Where do you all stand on how much editing is okay before it stops being an astronomy photo?
4 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In4 Comments
price.alice6mo ago
Wait, is the point to do science or to make a cool picture? Because if it's science, you use the data. If it's a hobby, you make it look nice. Getting mad about how someone else edits their space picture feels like missing the whole point.
6
the_shane7mo ago
Processing is a basic part of digital imaging, just like developing film was. Your friend's view would make most professional astrophotos "fake," which is silly. The goal is to show the object, not just the raw sensor data.
5
anthony1276mo ago
Honestly who cares if it's fake or not. It's just pretty space pictures for the internet. Arguing over processing is like fighting about the best way to make a sandwich. The whole thing feels way too serious for photos of colorful gas clouds.
5