Replies

So, in terms of presenting an “image” for us to see, someone had to carefully restrict what frequencies were going to be reproduced, and then colorize it with certain colors that would be complimentary and also indicate “levels” of output of those frequencies, and thus *carefully craft* the picture that we see, for purposes of getting an image that they wanted to create for us — and that the “artists” wanted us to see, and not actually what is “out there” (in reality, even in the full range of frequencies that truly exist).

Hmmm.

I took this image from my humble backyard observatory, using a 10" SCT and a Canon 40D, shooting raw images, that were merely combined and stacked, and post processed in PSCS3 using only curves to bring the existing data.

Located at about 1,300 light years away, the M42 nebula glows or emits red from the light of hydrogen gas excited by newly formed stars in the core of the nebula.

I can assure you I am no artist or some clever photo manipulator.

Color can be seen in some bright astronomical objects, such as stars, and bright planetary nebulae. However, very few gaseous emission nebulae or reflection nebulae will show any color at all visually because the are so faint. One of the few that does is M42, the Orion Nebula. Because it is so bright, greens and some pink/red/magenta can be seen in large telescopes by experienced observers. If any color is seen at all, it is usually the brightest green from the Oxygen III emissions that is seen first.

For those interested, this man at the link explains it well in regards to color astronomical images.

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/COLOR.HTM

You said — Color can be seen in some bright astronomical objects, such as stars, and bright planetary nebulae.

—

Yes, that’s obvious and clear, too, because just looking with our own eyes, we can see color in the skies (with objects), night or day (of course, seeing more in the night... LOL...).

I’ve never said that there are no “natural” colors out there in the universe. There obviously are. I can stand out there at night and see the different colors of the stars, as I look up. Those colors are there.

I was only saying that the pictures that we get from some of these deep space shots are pictures that are artificial and are “human constructs” made by carefully picking and choosing what radiation to keep and what to eliminate (also per the parameters of how the picture was “taken” too...). Then the picture was also constructed carefully per the colors and intensity and so on. It’s all crafted. We would never “see” these pictures, even if we were to go there and stand by a spaceship window and look outside. The object in the photo that we are presented with — simply does not exist, as in going there in a spaceship and looking out the window. There’s no such thing.

===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====

And then you reference a link at another site — For those interested, this man at the link explains it well in regards to color astronomical images.

I looked that over and he was talking about two things, it seems, primarily. He was talking about the existing colors that are there, in some of these deep space pictures (and with them being so faint that they are not picked up by the eye) and also, he’s talking about how we “perceive colors”, too.

Well, as far as the “perceiving colors”, that (for me) is not relevant to the particular discussion that I was raising, because I was talking about how people who make the photos can change and manipulate parameters and assign colors to make photos appear the way that they do. So, how we “perceive colors” is something that the person who constructed the photograph would be keeping in mind (in “constructing it” in the first place). In other words, that person is manipulating the photo, keeping in mind how we, as humans, “perceive colors” — again, a “human construct” applied to the “photo”.

And as far as his other primary point, it was how to handle the colors that are actually there, but very faint and manipulating them in such a way that it overcomes our inability to actually see it.

Well..., that, again..., is outside the discussion point that I was making. I was pointing out that there are radiation ranges that are *outside* of our visible range of seeing (hence, no colors or no “seeing” at all) — which are used (and those radiation ranges are “picked”, too...), and then they are assigned colors and intensities and combinations that are all intended to produce “pleasing and beautiful pictures”. It’s all a “human construct”.

So, once again, I give the “high praise” to the “human artists” (i.e., the personnel tasked with producing the pictures) or to the “computer programmers” who make the programs who do all that artificial “constructing” of things which we cannot see and radiation bands that are outside of our range of seeing, and decide which items to keep in the picture and which items to “kick out” of the picture.

*They* are the ones who have made a “beautiful picture out of something which isn’t there for us to see in the first place.

Oh, and as a follow up note on this...

For those interested, this man at the link explains it well in regards to color astronomical images.

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/COLOR.HTM

Thanks for the link, as I would like to get involved in some of the photos of astronomical objects and how to manipulate and alter the colors so to bring out a different picture than what we can see with our normal eyes. It sounds there is some material there for me to look into.

There’s nothing wrong with people manipulating and altering the reality of the photographs, as long as someone knows that it’s what you’re doing and that’s what they’re seeing.

I remember one time I took a tripod and my digital SLR and exposed a night shot of the yard, with a large amount of snow all around, Christmas lights on the house, and some shots of the backyard where there was no light at all.

You gotta know that I must have really wanted to do that, because it was at around 3 A.M., plus it was about 5 degrees outside... I had to keep bringing the camera, equipment and myself back inside to warm up for a bit, before going back out again.

By altering the exposure time I could create a lot of different effects of the snow and yard and Christmas lights. It was amazing how much light was there, that I could not see with my eyes, but the camera was able to pick up with a long exposure.

And in the backyard, I couldn’t see a darned thing, but with a 30-second exposure, it was as bright as the daytime, in the photo and I could pick up a lot of detail.

That’s just with the visible range of light (not the invisible that we don’t see with our eyes). I’m sure I could create all sorts of “beautiful pictures” of that snow and yard and so on (such that I would never see in real life) but would be visible in the radiation ranges that are outside my abilities. Who knows what kinds of “photo” I could create...