Re: [Utah-astronomy] M51 reprocessed
Chuck and David, Your back and forth discussion of color will provide an excellent introduction to the world of astrophotography and image processing for my astronomy classes tomorrow. Thank you both for a passionate but professional discussion. It has been a pleasure to follow it. Wayne A. Sumner Math/Physics/Astronomy/Engineering Boy's Tennis Coach Northridge High School Davis School District (801) 402-8610
David Rankin 12/02/09 3:35 PM >>> Chuck,
You brought up aliens ;) If cameras did not do an excellent job of reproducing what the "general population" sees, they wouldn't be selling any of them. Your also not correct about "having" to shoot in raw format. You can easily set the the white balance of the camera, shoot a shot of M42 in low resolution JPG mode, and end up with a very nice image that will look very similar to one you would have to tweak out in raw format. The simple compression scripts in the camera *that are designed to create the color pallet our brain sees* work well with no processing. The reason you shoot in raw is to gain more data, and control over that data, and to remove false readout signals such as noise. I think my point still stands. Cameras are designed to create the colors the general population sees, and thus, they capture the same set of colors from space, which would be the colors we would see if our eyes were bigger, and capable of long exposure. ;) I don't know if you have ever seen color in M42 with your eye before, I have. I can also make out the blues and reds in the trifid nebula after a minute or two. The colors the camera are capturing are accurate relative to the general human population. At least as far as consumer grade DSLR's and Point and Shoots go. Chuck Hards wrote:
You don't have to invoke aliens as perceiving colors differently, there are plenty of humans who do it, just not in great numbers compared to the general population. And many terrestrial animals and insects "see" well outside of our visual window. Undoubtedly "colors" correspond to energy levels differently for them, than they do for us.
You wrote "As good as the camera". Let me try and understand what that means. I'm going get picky here so forgive me, David.
That is true if you ignore the fact that the camera (computer, actually, or film emulsion in the old days) builds image intensity over time. In real-time, it is not much better than the eye in the visible part of the spectrum.
The tint and saturation of a particular image is rarely aesthetically pleasing in raw format straight from the camera, apparently, so we need to "re-balance" those attributes with image processing software.
We spend as much or more time manipulating the image after the file (or files) have been acquired and stored. The (astronomical) camera does none of this, it's all done by either a photo technician at the enlarger, or the computer operator if it's a digital image. The individual is then more artist than documentarian, just by nature of the activity itself.
So I stand by my statement that color is still all in the mind, and has no intrinsic qualities at all. "Correct" color is subjective and not objective. Like beauty, it is strictly in the eye of the beholder.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, David Rankin wrote:
Thus, if our eye was as good as a camera, the galaxy would look just like the photo.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Here a 5 part series on how I processed my M42 shot in Photoshop. The shots were already taken and stacked. Most stacking programs start you out with this very ugly grey photo as there is way too much data in the image, a lot of which needs to be tossed out to focus in on the light data. The videos show you how to stretch, composite, and color adjust the images. Playlist Here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1EA349A70CEB7265 Best in HD
Nice work David. I think most of what you did there, I could do with P.S. Elements. I'll give it a whirl. Thanks, Dale ________________________________ From: David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 4:21:26 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Just posted video processing tutorials Here a 5 part series on how I processed my M42 shot in Photoshop. The shots were already taken and stacked. Most stacking programs start you out with this very ugly grey photo as there is way too much data in the image, a lot of which needs to be tossed out to focus in on the light data. The videos show you how to stretch, composite, and color adjust the images. Playlist Here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1EA349A70CEB7265 Best in HD _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Good deal, I hope to add sound at some point. Dale Wilson wrote:
Nice work David. I think most of what you did there, I could do with P.S. Elements. I'll give it a whirl.
Thanks, Dale
________________________________ From: David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 4:21:26 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Just posted video processing tutorials
Here a 5 part series on how I processed my M42 shot in Photoshop. The shots were already taken and stacked. Most stacking programs start you out with this very ugly grey photo as there is way too much data in the image, a lot of which needs to be tossed out to focus in on the light data. The videos show you how to stretch, composite, and color adjust the images.
Playlist Here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1EA349A70CEB7265
Best in HD
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Interesting -- I'm trying to follow it, and maybe when I play all five a few more times I'll fully understand. Thanks for posting, Joe --- On Wed, 12/2/09, David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> wrote: From: David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Just posted video processing tutorials To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 4:21 PM Here a 5 part series on how I processed my M42 shot in Photoshop. The shots were already taken and stacked. Most stacking programs start you out with this very ugly grey photo as there is way too much data in the image, a lot of which needs to be tossed out to focus in on the light data. The videos show you how to stretch, composite, and color adjust the images. Playlist Here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1EA349A70CEB7265 Best in HD _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe, I started recording audio for them today. Should have the audio versions soon. Cheers, David Joe Bauman wrote:
Interesting -- I'm trying to follow it, and maybe when I play all five a few more times I'll fully understand. Thanks for posting, Joe
--- On Wed, 12/2/09, David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> wrote:
From: David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Just posted video processing tutorials To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 4:21 PM
Here a 5 part series on how I processed my M42 shot in Photoshop. The shots were already taken and stacked. Most stacking programs start you out with this very ugly grey photo as there is way too much data in the image, a lot of which needs to be tossed out to focus in on the light data. The videos show you how to stretch, composite, and color adjust the images.
Playlist Here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1EA349A70CEB7265
Best in HD
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Wayne, I have also enjoyed the back and forth with Chuck, defiantly gets you thinking about stuff. I hope we brought up some good material for you to use :) Cheers David Wayne Sumner wrote:
Chuck and David, Your back and forth discussion of color will provide an excellent introduction to the world of astrophotography and image processing for my astronomy classes tomorrow. Thank you both for a passionate but professional discussion. It has been a pleasure to follow it.
Wayne A. Sumner Math/Physics/Astronomy/Engineering Boy's Tennis Coach Northridge High School Davis School District (801) 402-8610
David Rankin 12/02/09 3:35 PM >>>
Chuck,
You brought up aliens ;)
If cameras did not do an excellent job of reproducing what the "general population" sees, they wouldn't be selling any of them.
Your also not correct about "having" to shoot in raw format. You can easily set the the white balance of the camera, shoot a shot of M42 in low resolution JPG mode, and end up with a very nice image that will look very similar to one you would have to tweak out in raw format. The simple compression scripts in the camera *that are designed to create the color pallet our brain sees* work well with no processing. The reason you shoot in raw is to gain more data, and control over that data, and to remove false readout signals such as noise.
I think my point still stands. Cameras are designed to create the colors the general population sees, and thus, they capture the same set of colors from space, which would be the colors we would see if our eyes were bigger, and capable of long exposure. ;)
I don't know if you have ever seen color in M42 with your eye before, I have. I can also make out the blues and reds in the trifid nebula after a minute or two. The colors the camera are capturing are accurate relative to the general human population. At least as far as consumer grade DSLR's and Point and Shoots go.
Chuck Hards wrote:
You don't have to invoke aliens as perceiving colors differently, there are plenty of humans who do it, just not in great numbers compared to the general population. And many terrestrial animals and insects "see" well outside of our visual window. Undoubtedly "colors" correspond to energy levels differently for them, than they do for us.
You wrote "As good as the camera". Let me try and understand what that means. I'm going get picky here so forgive me, David.
That is true if you ignore the fact that the camera (computer, actually, or film emulsion in the old days) builds image intensity over time. In real-time, it is not much better than the eye in the visible part of the spectrum.
The tint and saturation of a particular image is rarely aesthetically pleasing in raw format straight from the camera, apparently, so we need to "re-balance" those attributes with image processing software.
We spend as much or more time manipulating the image after the file (or files) have been acquired and stored. The (astronomical) camera does none of this, it's all done by either a photo technician at the enlarger, or the computer operator if it's a digital image. The individual is then more artist than documentarian, just by nature of the activity itself.
So I stand by my statement that color is still all in the mind, and has no intrinsic qualities at all. "Correct" color is subjective and not objective. Like beauty, it is strictly in the eye of the beholder.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, David Rankin wrote:
Thus, if our eye was as good as a camera, the galaxy would look just like the photo.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I actually agree with David. Cameras do record what the general population sees. This doesn't affect the scientific assertation (I didn't invent this, folks, it's accepted fact) that the concept of "color" as we are discussing here, exists only in the human mind. We haven't been going back and forth at all. We actually are not really discussing the same thing. I am seeing a lot of resistance to the idea of color perception as a psychological phenomenon. I detect a desire by some to connect the colors we perceive in nature to some kind of absolute. It's not so. I have nothing more to add, really, if you choose not to believe it, it's no skin off my nose. I just offered an admittedly esoteric scientific tidbit that isn't often talked about.
Yes, I'm going to re-emphasize this. David and I have not been communicating. Cameras and associated hardware and software are capable of recording what the general population sees. I have never disputed that. I fully agree with David. I have been trying to communicate the concept that those colors exist only in our minds and are entirely subjective. It's quite apparent that I have failed to make the concept clear. It's times like these that I wish I were a better communicator. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time, and mine apparently.
ABSOLUTELY NOT a waste of time, Chuck. It's stimulating and it's also true. For years I've tried to figure out something about that: do we even have the same brain process when we see? We only get strings of electrical impulses from our sense organs, conveyed to our brains. What if brains are not all organized alike? What if one brain interprets those impulses that hit the visual center in some way entirely unlike another's brain? I can barely express what I'm talking about, but suppose the brain "sees" information from the senses in some unique way? If we could go inside each other's heads, maybe we wouldn't even recognize things the other person was seeing as visual, or hearing as audible. Ultimately we may be isolated in our interpretations and not even realize it. -- Just a weird thought, Joe --- On Wed, 12/2/09, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote: From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M51 reprocessed To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 6:44 PM Yes, I'm going to re-emphasize this. David and I have not been communicating. Cameras and associated hardware and software are capable of recording what the general population sees. I have never disputed that. I fully agree with David. I have been trying to communicate the concept that those colors exist only in our minds and are entirely subjective. It's quite apparent that I have failed to make the concept clear. It's times like these that I wish I were a better communicator. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time, and mine apparently. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I guess I do have more to say. I appreciate your comments, Joe. Very insightful. What you described is not weird at all; people with some forms of autism sense the world around them very differently than you and I. Their brains are organized differently, exactly as you surmised. I'm not qualified to discuss exactly why, but it's probably some gentetically caused structural difference. But I digress, I just wanted to point out an example of the truth of what you hypothesized. It's real. I do hate to keep harping on this, but it's the essense of what I've been trying to say- the sky is only "blue" as seen by humans, and probably by other earthly creatures who evolved here. That's the root of what I've been trying to convey. We as a species, and probably as members of a larger group of species sharing part of the evolutionary tree, perceive certain colors that are associated with specific wavelengths of light. *But it is not a subjective, intrinsic quality of that wavelength- it's just the way we are constructed that allows us to see the sky as "blue". It's the way we are built that has associated the colors with those wavelengths. * ** Here's a better way to address Davids comments about the camera recording "accurate" colors: The cameras and hardware were DESIGNED to emulate human spectral response. Now think critically about that statement in the context of the sentence underlined above. Yes, I have seen colors visually, especially in M42, through large apertures. But again, those colors are in my brain, not in the nebula. Even if you were standing right in the middle of that nebula, to the unaided eye it would appear a colorless grey. The colors we see that are the result of long exposures or large apertures in no way represent the natural (read: unassisted by technology, a visual impression only) appearance of the object. They represent the different wavelengths emitted by the object, AS PERCEIVED by humans, and not due to, here we go again, a subjective, intrinsic quality of that wavelength. Carl Sagan said that "We are a way for the Universe to know itself". We are a part of the universe and although it would be a huge waste of space, if we were the only intelligent species in the universe, it would be enough, taken in the context of Sagan's statement. Think about it for a minute. There are life forms without a visual sense at all. But it takes a visual sense, as far as living creatures on earth are concerned, to see the stars at night and make Sagan's statement true. The evolution of vision, and the ability to distinguish wavelengths by assigning a perception of different colors to them, is a pretty remarkable thing. Just because those colors only exist in your mind doesn't diminish their importance. I gotta go excercise. I do 130 carbs on the elliptical daily, then I hit the weights (what color are carbs?). Have fun.
Chuck, Most of what I was addressing was these statements in your first email "Saturated colors in astronomical images are all fake. We try to approach what the various objects might look like if they were actually bright enough to trigger the color receptors in our eyes, but all deep-sky astronomical images are really just art, when it comes right down to it. " And again, I kindly disagree. Using your same logic, ALL colors are "Fake" but then you get into what attributes make something "real" and then a lot of ambiguity. The sensor is not trying to approach what the objects may look like, it is doing a very very good job of presenting exactly what they would look like _if our eyes were able to expose long periods of time_. Again, the camera is not creating any Fake colors, it is just able to capture more light over a longer time, and it doesn't have the problem of "night vision" it is calibrated to pick up the colors the same way our eyes do int he daylight. _IF_ our eyes were better equipped to see at night, cones staying active, we would probably see a very rich variety of colors, much like what are in the photographs. _If_ all images are just art, so is all of vision, and perception of the electromagnetic spectrum (which may be true). The neat thing about this is...calibration. It is all about calibration. If we both see an apple as red or green, we can communicate that experience to one another. For whatever reason that is, it is. The general population can move forward with commonalities that help them communicate with one another. So, I say _that within the human experience_, because our cameras are made "in the image of our eye" the images are anything but "saturated and fake" they are representations of what we would see, if our eyes were more suited to looking at the night sky. That stands true on earth looking at the orion nebula, or right in the middle of it. I am not debating the fact that all of these colors are manufactured in our head, I am saying that calling the images "fake and saturated" is more subjective than the how we assign those color values in the first place. The entire idea for the most part, behind photography, is to capture what we see, how we see it, based on the calibrates set of colors that the human brain delivers. "The colors we see that are the result of long exposures or large apertures in no way represent the natural (read: unassisted by technology, a visual impression only) appearance of the object. They represent the different wavelengths emitted by the object, AS PERCEIVED by humans, and not due to, here we go again, a subjective, intrinsic quality of that wavelength." Once again, "natural" color as "perceived by us". You can assign any color value you want to any wavelength, but unless we have a common "order" for those colors, it is chaos. Thanks to mother nature for giving us brains that can calibrate those colors. And again, I'm not arguing that the intrinsic value of the wavelength is any way changed by how we perceive it, or is actually anything close to how we perceive it, I'm just talking in terms of general population, and representing the reality of how we perceive color, in a photograph. If your going to narrow down "natural" to the very limited ability of the human eye, yes, that statement is true, but for me, I consider the ability of a camera to collect these photons and deliver them to us as a natural view as well. Those colors very closely represent the natural colors of the nebulae (as we would see them if we could), because the photons were emitted by that nebula, caught by the camera, and delivered to us. If the nebula was not there to emit those photons, the camera, and our eyes, could not have captured them in the first place. It is very natural. " Just because those colors only exist in your mind doesn't diminish their importance." Fully agree. Anyway, I think I have actually learned quite a bit from this. I also think it has been milked out a bit. I see you talking about how the brain manufactures color, and I'm talking about how we experience it, and reproduce it. All the same stuff in the end. Cheers, David Chuck Hards wrote:
I guess I do have more to say. I appreciate your comments, Joe. Very insightful.
What you described is not weird at all; people with some forms of autism sense the world around them very differently than you and I. Their brains are organized differently, exactly as you surmised. I'm not qualified to discuss exactly why, but it's probably some gentetically caused structural difference. But I digress, I just wanted to point out an example of the truth of what you hypothesized. It's real.
I do hate to keep harping on this, but it's the essense of what I've been trying to say- the sky is only "blue" as seen by humans, and probably by other earthly creatures who evolved here. That's the root of what I've been trying to convey.
We as a species, and probably as members of a larger group of species sharing part of the evolutionary tree, perceive certain colors that are associated with specific wavelengths of light. *But it is not a subjective, intrinsic quality of that wavelength- it's just the way we are constructed that allows us to see the sky as "blue". It's the way we are built that has associated the colors with those wavelengths. * ** Here's a better way to address Davids comments about the camera recording "accurate" colors: The cameras and hardware were DESIGNED to emulate human spectral response. Now think critically about that statement in the context of the sentence underlined above.
Yes, I have seen colors visually, especially in M42, through large apertures. But again, those colors are in my brain, not in the nebula. Even if you were standing right in the middle of that nebula, to the unaided eye it would appear a colorless grey. The colors we see that are the result of long exposures or large apertures in no way represent the natural (read: unassisted by technology, a visual impression only) appearance of the object. They represent the different wavelengths emitted by the object, AS PERCEIVED by humans, and not due to, here we go again, a subjective, intrinsic quality of that wavelength.
Carl Sagan said that "We are a way for the Universe to know itself". We are a part of the universe and although it would be a huge waste of space, if we were the only intelligent species in the universe, it would be enough, taken in the context of Sagan's statement. Think about it for a minute. There are life forms without a visual sense at all. But it takes a visual sense, as far as living creatures on earth are concerned, to see the stars at night and make Sagan's statement true. The evolution of vision, and the ability to distinguish wavelengths by assigning a perception of different colors to them, is a pretty remarkable thing.
Just because those colors only exist in your mind doesn't diminish their importance.
I gotta go excercise. I do 130 carbs on the elliptical daily, then I hit the weights (what color are carbs?). Have fun. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
And to mention one more point that crossed my mind about natural. If we really are a product of a lightening bolt that hit a pond with hydrocarbons and amino acids in it billions of years ago, and evolved into what we are today...then the fact that we can use our abilities to even create a camera is also a function of nature. We are a product of nature, cameras are a product of us...cameras are a product of nature. A camera is really just an extension of the human ability to calibrate and perceive light. We have naturally created an extension of our ability to perceive the universe. The fact that we can calibrate and translate into a palatable form - X rays, and Gamma Rays, and Micro Waves, and all kinds of waves..is amazing to me. I guess that falls under the ambiguity of what is real or fake, but thought I would toss that out there as well. David David Rankin wrote:
Chuck,
Most of what I was addressing was these statements in your first email
"Saturated colors in astronomical images are all fake. We try to approach what the various objects might look like if they were actually bright enough to trigger the color receptors in our eyes, but all deep-sky astronomical images are really just art, when it comes right down to it. "
And again, I kindly disagree. Using your same logic, ALL colors are "Fake" but then you get into what attributes make something "real" and then a lot of ambiguity. The sensor is not trying to approach what the objects may look like, it is doing a very very good job of presenting exactly what they would look like _if our eyes were able to expose long periods of time_. Again, the camera is not creating any Fake colors, it is just able to capture more light over a longer time, and it doesn't have the problem of "night vision" it is calibrated to pick up the colors the same way our eyes do int he daylight. _IF_ our eyes were better equipped to see at night, cones staying active, we would probably see a very rich variety of colors, much like what are in the photographs. _If_ all images are just art, so is all of vision, and perception of the electromagnetic spectrum (which may be true). The neat thing about this is...calibration. It is all about calibration. If we both see an apple as red or green, we can communicate that experience to one another. For whatever reason that is, it is. The general population can move forward with commonalities that help them communicate with one another. So, I say _that within the human experience_, because our cameras are made "in the image of our eye" the images are anything but "saturated and fake" they are representations of what we would see, if our eyes were more suited to looking at the night sky. That stands true on earth looking at the orion nebula, or right in the middle of it. I am not debating the fact that all of these colors are manufactured in our head, I am saying that calling the images "fake and saturated" is more subjective than the how we assign those color values in the first place. The entire idea for the most part, behind photography, is to capture what we see, how we see it, based on the calibrates set of colors that the human brain delivers.
"The colors we see that are the result of long exposures or large apertures in no way represent the natural (read: unassisted by technology, a visual impression only) appearance of the object. They represent the different wavelengths emitted by the object, AS PERCEIVED by humans, and not due to, here we go again, a subjective, intrinsic quality of that wavelength."
Once again, "natural" color as "perceived by us". You can assign any color value you want to any wavelength, but unless we have a common "order" for those colors, it is chaos. Thanks to mother nature for giving us brains that can calibrate those colors. And again, I'm not arguing that the intrinsic value of the wavelength is any way changed by how we perceive it, or is actually anything close to how we perceive it, I'm just talking in terms of general population, and representing the reality of how we perceive color, in a photograph. If your going to narrow down "natural" to the very limited ability of the human eye, yes, that statement is true, but for me, I consider the ability of a camera to collect these photons and deliver them to us as a natural view as well. Those colors very closely represent the natural colors of the nebulae (as we would see them if we could), because the photons were emitted by that nebula, caught by the camera, and delivered to us. If the nebula was not there to emit those photons, the camera, and our eyes, could not have captured them in the first place. It is very natural.
" Just because those colors only exist in your mind doesn't diminish their importance."
Fully agree.
Anyway, I think I have actually learned quite a bit from this. I also think it has been milked out a bit. I see you talking about how the brain manufactures color, and I'm talking about how we experience it, and reproduce it. All the same stuff in the end.
Cheers,
David
Chuck Hards wrote:
I guess I do have more to say. I appreciate your comments, Joe. Very insightful.
What you described is not weird at all; people with some forms of autism sense the world around them very differently than you and I. Their brains are organized differently, exactly as you surmised. I'm not qualified to discuss exactly why, but it's probably some gentetically caused structural difference. But I digress, I just wanted to point out an example of the truth of what you hypothesized. It's real.
I do hate to keep harping on this, but it's the essense of what I've been trying to say- the sky is only "blue" as seen by humans, and probably by other earthly creatures who evolved here. That's the root of what I've been trying to convey.
We as a species, and probably as members of a larger group of species sharing part of the evolutionary tree, perceive certain colors that are associated with specific wavelengths of light. *But it is not a subjective, intrinsic quality of that wavelength- it's just the way we are constructed that allows us to see the sky as "blue". It's the way we are built that has associated the colors with those wavelengths. * ** Here's a better way to address Davids comments about the camera recording "accurate" colors: The cameras and hardware were DESIGNED to emulate human spectral response. Now think critically about that statement in the context of the sentence underlined above.
Yes, I have seen colors visually, especially in M42, through large apertures. But again, those colors are in my brain, not in the nebula. Even if you were standing right in the middle of that nebula, to the unaided eye it would appear a colorless grey. The colors we see that are the result of long exposures or large apertures in no way represent the natural (read: unassisted by technology, a visual impression only) appearance of the object. They represent the different wavelengths emitted by the object, AS PERCEIVED by humans, and not due to, here we go again, a subjective, intrinsic quality of that wavelength.
Carl Sagan said that "We are a way for the Universe to know itself". We are a part of the universe and although it would be a huge waste of space, if we were the only intelligent species in the universe, it would be enough, taken in the context of Sagan's statement. Think about it for a minute. There are life forms without a visual sense at all. But it takes a visual sense, as far as living creatures on earth are concerned, to see the stars at night and make Sagan's statement true. The evolution of vision, and the ability to distinguish wavelengths by assigning a perception of different colors to them, is a pretty remarkable thing.
Just because those colors only exist in your mind doesn't diminish their importance.
I gotta go excercise. I do 130 carbs on the elliptical daily, then I hit the weights (what color are carbs?). Have fun. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi David, sorry I'm so late getting back to this. I only check this email address very sporadically. I guess it's been nearly a week. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:55 PM, David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> wrote:
I see you talking about how the brain manufactures color, and I'm talking about how we experience it, and reproduce it. All the same stuff in the end.
Yes, that is what I was talking about. But no, I don't recall you specifically talking about how we "experience" it in the same context as I. Clearly you think you did, so we don't have enough common ground to continue. I still see us as talking about 2 different subjects, with some things in common, but not 2 discussions that should be held together.
But PLEASE DONT reply in-depth because I can't stay as involved in the discussion as you deserve. It might be weeks before I check this address again. As it is, there are nearly 30 list messages from the last couple of weeks I don't currently have time to read. What I apparently didn't describe adequately is that it's not Chuck's Theorum, it's accepted fact. As I said, I don't care one way or the other who understands and who doesn't, I just thought I'd raise an admittedly very esoteric point. The techies among us are probably prone to dismiss it as a distraction since it's really a discussion of the psychology of perception, not physics, astronomy, or engineering. I've already spent way more time than I should have trying to explain something I have no stake in. My sincere apologies, I'm sure I disappoint many of you as someone to hold a discussion with. Merry Christmas!
Wow, make that more like 60 messages unread, I was only counting subjects! Keeping up with this list is a lost cause! LOL!
Chuck, This discussion had nothing to do with what you perceive as "fact". You simply presented a premise I disagree with, and presented plenty of evidence to back up my claims. I don't get the confusion on manufacturing color and experiencing it in life. Your clearly talking about how the brain assigns color values, and I have been talking about how we "experience" it the entire time, that experience via photography. So yes, I have been clearly talking about how we "experience" it. The two subjects have everything in common. The brain assigns very similar color values from person to person, and photography reproduces that. I don't see a conflict there. Again, I'm not sure which theorem or "fact" your referring to here. My debate was never about the fact that colors are manufactured in the brain. I understand that clearly. I've made my case that if our eyes were as effective as cameras, then what we see in photos would be what we would see with our eyes, very clearly. Thus, in my opinion, saturated colors in astrophotography are anything but fake. I'm not sure why your so apologetic, I have enjoyed the discussion a lot and hardly think it was a waste of time. I do agree, it's over at this point lol. Cheers, David Chuck Hards wrote:
Hi David, sorry I'm so late getting back to this. I only check this email address very sporadically. I guess it's been nearly a week.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:55 PM, David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> wrote:
I see you talking about how the brain manufactures color, and I'm talking about how we experience it, and reproduce it. All the same stuff in the end.
Yes, that is what I was talking about. But no, I don't recall you
specifically talking about how we "experience" it in the same context as I. Clearly you think you did, so we don't have enough common ground to continue. I still see us as talking about 2 different subjects, with some things in common, but not 2 discussions that should be held together.
But PLEASE DONT reply in-depth because I can't stay as involved in the discussion as you deserve. It might be weeks before I check this address again. As it is, there are nearly 30 list messages from the last couple of weeks I don't currently have time to read.
What I apparently didn't describe adequately is that it's not Chuck's Theorum, it's accepted fact. As I said, I don't care one way or the other who understands and who doesn't, I just thought I'd raise an admittedly very esoteric point. The techies among us are probably prone to dismiss it as a distraction since it's really a discussion of the psychology of perception, not physics, astronomy, or engineering. I've already spent way more time than I should have trying to explain something I have no stake in.
My sincere apologies, I'm sure I disappoint many of you as someone to hold a discussion with.
Merry Christmas! _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
On 09 Dec 2009, at 16:24, David Rankin wrote:
Chuck,
This discussion had nothing to do with what you perceive as "fact".
Actually Chuck has left the list (another victim of our recent climate change flame war). He certainly was not the first which has me wondering about ways to keep such things from happening in future. One option would be to have the system set that if a certain numbers of folks post, either to the list or to the administrators, that a discussion has gone on too long the administrators would cut off the discussion. The liberal side of me sees that as a form of censorship. During the recent war I found myself using the "delete" key very liberally. But, then again, if a discussion becomes so heated and drawn out that it drives folks away, maybe such an option should be pursued. You opinions (on this and other way of handling wars) would be much appreciated. patrick co-admin
Patrick, Are you sure Chuck Hards left? I have been having a back and forth with him for a while since the climate debate. That was a response to a response he sent today. I agree, at some point disagreements are more than worn out. David Patrick Wiggins wrote:
On 09 Dec 2009, at 16:24, David Rankin wrote:
Chuck,
This discussion had nothing to do with what you perceive as "fact".
Actually Chuck has left the list (another victim of our recent climate change flame war).
He certainly was not the first which has me wondering about ways to keep such things from happening in future.
One option would be to have the system set that if a certain numbers of folks post, either to the list or to the administrators, that a discussion has gone on too long the administrators would cut off the discussion.
The liberal side of me sees that as a form of censorship. During the recent war I found myself using the "delete" key very liberally.
But, then again, if a discussion becomes so heated and drawn out that it drives folks away, maybe such an option should be pursued.
You opinions (on this and other way of handling wars) would be much appreciated.
patrick co-admin _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I'm a big believer in vigorous discussion, and I don't think any of our exchanges recently reached the level of flame war.In fact, they were cordial and forthright. But I can see how some folks get upset when the talk gets a little hot & heavy. It's perplexing. Rattling around in the back of my mind is a rule from some Utopian novel: a society agreed to rules something like, "Try not to give offense, and don't take offense too easily." We're our own little society where all are welcome to comment. I always think of our often-fascinating chats as if we were sitting around a breakfast table and engaging in friendly talk and debate. So rather than censer, I would urge our leaders to quietly talk into the ear of anyone who's getting a little out of control -- just send a private email saying, hey, maybe it's time to cool it. Just my 1/2 cents' worth. jb --- On Wed, 12/9/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] How to handle "wars" on UA To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 9:10 PM On 09 Dec 2009, at 16:24, David Rankin wrote:
Chuck,
This discussion had nothing to do with what you perceive as "fact".
Actually Chuck has left the list (another victim of our recent climate change flame war). He certainly was not the first which has me wondering about ways to keep such things from happening in future. One option would be to have the system set that if a certain numbers of folks post, either to the list or to the administrators, that a discussion has gone on too long the administrators would cut off the discussion. The liberal side of me sees that as a form of censorship. During the recent war I found myself using the "delete" key very liberally. But, then again, if a discussion becomes so heated and drawn out that it drives folks away, maybe such an option should be pursued. You opinions (on this and other way of handling wars) would be much appreciated. patrick co-admin _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
While OT topics can be interesting I'm subscribed to this list for info about astronomy, particularly in Utah. The OT topics just rub the finish off the delete key. Chuck's posts have be informative and helpful, if he's left the list because of the OT stuff it's our loss. Bill B On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:10 PM, Patrick Wiggins wrote:
On 09 Dec 2009, at 16:24, David Rankin wrote:
Chuck,
This discussion had nothing to do with what you perceive as "fact".
Actually Chuck has left the list (another victim of our recent climate change flame war).
He certainly was not the first which has me wondering about ways to keep such things from happening in future.
One option would be to have the system set that if a certain numbers of folks post, either to the list or to the administrators, that a discussion has gone on too long the administrators would cut off the discussion.
The liberal side of me sees that as a form of censorship. During the recent war I found myself using the "delete" key very liberally.
But, then again, if a discussion becomes so heated and drawn out that it drives folks away, maybe such an option should be pursued.
You opinions (on this and other way of handling wars) would be much appreciated.
patrick co-admin _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
If the discussion was limited to climate science many agreed it was an astronomy topic. However, it always quickly degraded away from science. enough said. It seems the expressed consensus is that we will no longer bring up climate science. Once, the subject comes up it is hard to stop it without possible censorship. The delete option is an individuals best option. On the subject of photography, I guess the proof is in the pudding. I must admit though some of the image processing programs seem to have a data base of astronomical images that it uses to produce the images it "processes". IE "Photography Gate" Erik On 09 Dec 2009, at 16:24, David Rankin wrote:
Chuck,
This discussion had nothing to do with what you perceive as "fact".
Actually Chuck has left the list (another victim of our recent climate change flame war).
He certainly was not the first which has me wondering about ways to keep such things from happening in future.
One option would be to have the system set that if a certain numbers of folks post, either to the list or to the administrators, that a discussion has gone on too long the administrators would cut off the discussion.
The liberal side of me sees that as a form of censorship. During the recent war I found myself using the "delete" key very liberally.
But, then again, if a discussion becomes so heated and drawn out that it drives folks away, maybe such an option should be pursued.
You opinions (on this and other way of handling wars) would be much appreciated.
patrick co-admin _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
The only thing worse than under-moderating is over-moderating. Imagine the recent off topic heated debate if one or or more of the participants had the power to silence their opponents and was still free to say whatever they wished. That is what would drive ME to leave this list. I trust Jo Grahn because she understands the importance of the moderator's neutrality. I do not trust anyone else on this list to do this in a fair and reasoned manner. She gave a warning shot early on in the debate, it was just a bit of sarcasm but it was enough for the intellegent to see what was the right thing to do about the topic. Some just can't take a hint. DT
This interesting discussion reminds me of a guy who works at the Space Telescope Science Institute that I heard interviewed during one of my NASA training sessions. His job is to add the colors to the otherwise monochromatic Hubble images we've all admired over the years. :) patrick
For that matter, I enjoy thinking about the reality of what we see -- a general flow of electromagnetism in all directions, waves/particles traveling so many light years, that do not become a representation of anything until eyes perceive them. It's a strange thought. On the other hand, that certain combinations of wavelengths create certain colors as we perceive them. To deny that would be to say that the sky isn't really blue. The objects in space send electromagnetic vibrations off that do coincide to our conventions about color, and they are objectively measurable wavelengths. By the way, I deeply respect all those posting on this discussion and I think it's wonderful to explore our ideas about color. Thanks for a nice, civil talk -- Joe --- On Wed, 12/2/09, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote: From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M51 reprocessed To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 6:35 PM I actually agree with David. Cameras do record what the general population sees. This doesn't affect the scientific assertation (I didn't invent this, folks, it's accepted fact) that the concept of "color" as we are discussing here, exists only in the human mind. We haven't been going back and forth at all. We actually are not really discussing the same thing. I am seeing a lot of resistance to the idea of color perception as a psychological phenomenon. I detect a desire by some to connect the colors we perceive in nature to some kind of absolute. It's not so. I have nothing more to add, really, if you choose not to believe it, it's no skin off my nose. I just offered an admittedly esoteric scientific tidbit that isn't often talked about. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (9)
-
Chuck Hards -
Dale Wilson -
daniel turner -
David Rankin -
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Joe Bauman -
Patrick Wiggins -
Wayne Sumner -
William Biesele