 #... |
|---|
| What is it about supersaturation that garners so much attention? One of the most fundamental lessons I learned (and it took a long time to learn it) about image processing was to not over-saturate....which is in every way as contrary to what I regard as the fundamental tenets of image processing as not over-sharpening, over-stretching, using too much noise control, or using too much deconvolution, etc, etc. The "experts" who guided me along my learning curve produced amazingly balanced, realistic-looking images with my data when I could only render garish cartoons. The 4 big items? Level of stretch, sharpening, noise control and you got it....saturation. I work very hard to ensure saturation does not get away from me. Now, it seems, it has become en vogue to throw the can of paint at the wall so to speak. You don't believe me? visit the library of TP and IOTD and you will see many hyper-colorful images. I do not get it. Believe me, I am way beyond caring what happens on Astrobin....but I thought if others happen to share this opinion, they can take heart in the fact that they are not alone. I have seen a lot of images that would be spectacular, worthy of the accolades and honors if it weren't for the fact that they look like neon signs. I just don't understand. |
6.89
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Rodd, This is an interesting subject and of course there is no "scientifically correct" answer. There are just different schools of thought. In my opinion colors convey information (the represent different materials and different physical or chemical procedures going on) plus they are beautiful. Why is it realistic to boost the intensity a hundred thousand times but unrealistic to do the same on saturation? Either both are unrealistic or none is. I would point out that if you shoot in low light (say a candle light) with a default color balance the result is usually full of very warm red hues compared to what you see with the naked eye. There is nothing unrealistic about it, the sensor simply remains equally sensitive to red in low light while the human eye practically sees no red. We actually process our low light normal images so that they are seriously undersaturated compared to the reality. Now, the way I see it image is oversaturated when it starts losing chromatic detail because all colors are compressed towards the same extreme values (the equivalent in intensity is overexposure where everything becomes white and you can see no detail). I would not call it oversaturated just because colors are boosted. I haven't seen a IOTD that I would personally call oversaturated. I understand in previous decades processing was not what it is today. 16 bit raw data and 32 bit processing pipelines were not for everybody, neither were the tools as sophisticated. It was easier to oversaturate so people preferred being very conservative about it and this created certain standard about how astrophotos should look like: white stars, pitch black sky, limited saturation with equalised histogram which is known to punish red hues compared to blue and green was some kind of crime unless you did narrowband  Photos just tend to be more colorful these days. Also bear in mind that many people (me included) aim for an aesthetically pleasing result and not photometric accuracy (although I will insist that a photometrically accurate image usually is way more warm and saturated that what we have learned to expect). Everything is allowed in that case, even wild experiments using the raw data as a sort of "ink". Cheers, Dimitris |
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Photos just tend to be more colorful these days.To the detriment of this endeavor IMO. I have seen many IOTD and TPs that I would consider oversaturated--in fact hypersaturated-- and wouldn't dream of posting them, any more than I would post an image that is full of sharpening artifacts or smeered by too much noise control. Why not just crank up the saturation on everything then? And to answer you question about why not super saturate if we are going to super stretch so we can see. the reason is becuase when we make something brighter it is so we can see it--the ratio between the brightness and the saturation should remain comparable. Just becuase we brighten someting so we can see it does not mean we should then saturate it to the same extent. that is ridiculous. Astophotography is a subset of landscape photography--the goal is to document what is there as much as is possible. With narrowband its the same IMO--yes the colors may be different--but the intensities should not be different--or not overly so. Show me a photograh of a beach scene with pink water and purple foam. Show me a portraite of a person with azure skin and black teeth. Astrophotography documents what is there. Otherwise, IMO it is not atrophotography--it is astro painting, or whatever you want to call it. |
11.14
#... |
|---|
| Excellent post, Dimitris! Cheers and Clear Skies! |
11.24
#... |
|---|
|
When I first started this hobby, I read everything I could find online about astrophotography, I read books and looked at videos specific to processing astro images, I downloaded and still use, star maps and studied thousands of images from Hubble pro to humble amateur. I came across Astrobin long before I thought I was anywhere near accomplished enough to post a pic. I am still learning aspects of astro imaging and processing that most others here have mastered for years, and I have learned a great deal from being a member of this site. But if there is one aspect in which my previous photo and processing experience has prepared me for Astro, it is color. In defense it should be stated that first obtaining and then applying accurate color may be the most difficult aspects of astroimaging, first due to seeing, tracking sky conditions, LP and a million other variables, and then differences in computer screens, lighting and individual eyesight. Then there is personal preference... Unfortunately there is no standard for this. Bad color, wrong color, and especially too much color seem to be hallmarks of astrophotography, and it is apparent that it's not just beginners. Maybe Hubble images started all this years ago? Maybe new imagers see the popular pics and just try too hard to emulate them? Maybe its my sky or my cheap telescope that makes it impossible for me to capture color at all? At any rate there is an expression that states- No one thing can be considered worthless because it can always serve as a bad example-. We can all like what we like and try to learn from or ignore what we do not like. For example, this post. Scott |
#... |
|---|
When I first started this hobby, I read everything I could find online about astrophotography, I read books and looked at videos specific to processing astro images, I downloaded and still use, star maps and studied thousands of images from Hubble pro to humble amateur. I came across Astrobin long before I thought I was anywhere near accomplished enough to post a pic. I am still learning aspects of astro imaging and processing that most others here have mastered for years, and I have learned a great deal from being a member of this site. But if there is one aspect in which my previous photo and processing experience has prepared me for Astro, it is color. In defense it should be stated that first obtaining and then applying accurate color may be the most difficult aspects of astroimaging, first due to seeing, tracking sky conditions, LP and a million other variables, and then differences in computer screens, lighting and individual eyesight. Then there is personal preference... Unfortunately there is no standard for this. Bad color, wrong color, and especially too much color seem to be hallmarks of astrophotography, and it is apparent that it's not just beginners. Maybe Hubble images started all this years ago? Maybe new imagers see the popular pics and just try too hard to emulate them? Maybe its my sky or my cheap telescope that makes it impossible for me to capture color at all? At any rate there is an expression that states- No one thing can be considered worthless because it can always serve as a bad example-. We can all like what we like and try to learn from or ignore what we do not like. For example, this post.Not sure where you stand based on your post. All I will say is I am not referring to "correct" color--therein lies a quagmire. But too much color--of whatever variety- is like pornography. You might not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it. I am referring to "hyper saturation". In other words, way, way, way too much color. |
0.00
#... |
|---|
Now, the way I see it image is oversaturated when it starts losing chromatic detail because all colors are compressed towards the same extreme values (the equivalent in intensity is overexposure where everything becomes white and you can see no detail). I would not call it oversaturated just because colors are boosted. I completely agree. This is a reasonable way of defining "over" saturation in a way that leaves room for artistic license. Rodd Dryfoos: This debate about science vs photography vs art etc has been beaten to death on the internet countless times in the context of astronomy and also landscape photography. I doubt there will be any resolution of this debate here. If it helps to think of this site as an astropainting site then do that. For what it's worth, this is from the wikipedia page on astrophotography Today, astrophotography is mostly a subdiscipline in amateur astronomy, usually seeking aesthetically pleasing images rather than scientific data. Amateurs use a wide range of special equipment and techniques. |
#... |
|---|
Adam Landefeld:This just begs the question "what is aesthetically pleasing" It is semantics. I am saying that hypersaturated images are not aesthetically pleasing to me and I posted this to see if there were any other people who agreed with me. Seeing that ALL the experts who have helped me over the years have instilled in me this belief, I can't imagine I am the only one. To me, aesthetically pleasing....ah, what's the use. No sense talking to the wall. I will end by saying hypersaturated images are like a bad smell--they cause me to wrinkle my nose and quickly change the page. The fact that judges, and apparently others, rank them high causes me almost as much consternation as knowing the upcoming election is likely to be close. |
#... |
|---|
Until we have N different rendering versions on N different devices, this topic cannot be carried on despite it is quite interesting.My Lagoon is completely oversaturated on my Samsung while OK on my Asus and nearly OK, a little bit too saturated, on my DELL.We can still discuss it. For your image--from what you say it is oversaturated on all screens but 1. (even if just a bit). So, probably oversaturated. (a bad screen is a bad screen after all). If I have an old pair of glasses that are not strong enough for me anymore and everything looks blurry, should I judge what I see based on what it looks like in those glasses? No. I have seen your lagoon. While it is too saturated for me, it is not quite hypersaturated IMO. |
11.88
#... |
|---|
| I fully share your impressions and thoughts Rodd. Glad that you mentionned it. Now it is a fact that some people like these neon shots and it is fully ok to share them here. Colour is always a quite subjective question. Some photographs are also colour blind for some hues and they might need to saturate more some colours. Or for some this is just a bit provocation to have fun, it is ok too. I am also surprised how screens can deliver very different level of colour saturation. I try to finish all my colour pictures on my calibrated screen at home to avoid bad surprises. At the end it is a question of sensitvity, education of perception, taste...an endless debate. Hypersaturation is always destroying information, this is a shame for me when using high-end instruments but some people just not look for a maximum of information in their pictures. |
#... |
|---|
Andreas Zeinert:i agree. Post away. No problem. But there seems to be a lot of rewards and accolades and that me as me those who took the care to process with this in mind are missing out. BTW. I really need to learn how to calibrate my monitor. I have run through the tests where you compare gray lines and stuff. It’s built into windows but it doesn’t seem to help . |
6.06
#... |
|---|
You're not going to get any POTD with that attitude.  You do have a lot of good pics btw. Good color balance. nothing too extreme. It's easy for some of us to not want to do what everyone else is doing though. I mean afterall once you've see one orion you've seen them all. |
#... |
|---|
You're not going to get any POTD with that attitude.i am not going to get an IOTD regardless of my attitude. I might as well tell it how I see it |
#... |
|---|
| . |
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos:i am not going to get an IOTD regardless, do I might as well tell it as I see itYou're not going to get any POTD with that attitude.i am not going to get an IOTD regardless of my attitude. I might as well tell it how I see it |
0.00
#... |
|---|
| (deleted) |
|
6.89
#... |
|---|
Until we have N different rendering versions on N different devices, this topic cannot be carried on despite it is quite interesting.My Lagoon is completely oversaturated on my Samsung while OK on my Asus and nearly OK, a little bit too saturated, on my DELL. You know I hadn't thought of that! I use a D65 profile for my monitor because it works better with printed pictures and also makes the monitor more readable, but I have just tried switching to a profile that is supposedly specifically designed for my monitor (and actually looks very similar to D50) and of course everything is much more saturated and less contrasty. Still not enough to actually lose detail, but definitely less good looking. So I guess in other people's devices an image that I find real good might look awful and vice versa. Cheers, D. |
#... |
|---|
Until we have N different rendering versions on N different devices, this topic cannot be carried on despite it is quite interesting.My Lagoon is completely oversaturated on my Samsung while OK on my Asus and nearly OK, a little bit too saturated, on my DELL.Unfortunately that's it! I find the great images look good on all screensUntil we have N different rendering versions on N different devices, this topic cannot be carried on despite it is quite interesting.My Lagoon is completely oversaturated on my Samsung while OK on my Asus and nearly OK, a little bit too saturated, on my DELL. |
|
6.89
#... |
|---|
|
This is equivalent to saying saturation is not a thing, therefore the whole discussion is completely unfounded. Because when you change the color temperature and the gamma this directly affects saturation. When you play with those screen settings you aren't doing anything fundamentally different from what can be done on a bitmap with the base curve and color temperature tools. You are just doing it to a "live" bitmap that is the entire screen. That's why these settings are under "color adjust" in the screen's OSD. Don't believe me? Load any great image on your screen. Then set gamma to 100% and color temperature to the lowest value. Don't look so great now, does it? Cheers, D. |
 #... |
|---|
|
I believe the quoted wiki definition of astrophotography rings true. Especially as it applies to what this site is achieving. I come at this from the perspective of a scientist by trade, but as an astronomer, I am only an amateur. In fact, it is my hope to someday record images that can accomplish some science at some level, but until I get the hours under my belt and the expertise, this is purely an art thing right now. However, my sentiment as a scientist is to achieve some level of presentational accuracy in this "art". But I do understand that almost none of the objects we have access to, or are presented here, really would be visible (as they are presented) to an observer even if that observer could somehow be located in an ideal position of viewing. So ultimately, it really is appropriate for those to present how they wish. But the frustration you express appears to have to do with how they are recognized by the judges that present awards to these images. In this, I cannot imagine that these images represent works of art that are any different than songs, paintings, etc. Really, current awards (like monetary feedback) really have to do with the number of people that choose to like or buy these things. Most have little lasting impact, with only a few that become timeless. So today, big colors may be the popular "thing". Tomorrow maybe its pastels... But for color saturation, if one wants to achieve some sense of reality, there are some standards possible. In that I have to ask how many of the astrophotographers actually look through an eyepiece on occasion? For most of the nebulae and for most telescopes, little or no color will be seen. However, that is not the case for stars, where many brighter stars are able to activate our color sensitive cones in a normal fashion. And therein lies a hope for some color calibration of images. I do believe that there is very pleasing color, as evidenced by the colors seen in such examples of Alberio. The contrast of this relatively close pair certainly enhances the perception of color as well, but would not support the extreme colors used by many in their image processing. So such examples could be used during the large stretches that are used in most nebula post processing and tools such as PI actually have the means to achieve such calibration. The caveat to me would seem that this only applies to OSC or RGB shots. That is because, one who does this type of photography is by definition trying to (or forced to by equipment and $$$) to replicate what one is seeing, only if one could actually visually stretch such images. For narrow band, this constraint would seem to be moot. But then who cares?! If you don't like a presentation, then as with all art walk past it and go on to the next. If you feel you are being ignored by the masses, then like most artists, continue to do what you do for your own pleasure. But if you do it only for fame, accolades and $$$, then that is always a tough place for any artist to start from. And make no mistake, this is art and not science. Where the works presented here intersect some science is that many images presented here are enhanced by means that are sometimes used by professional scientists to tease out data and test hypotheses. So narrow band imaging, and even broadband or full color imagining use some techniques such as extreme stretching, narrow band or single band detection, etc., to get information on chemical content or even structural details that professional astronomy has used in the past or even currently. There can be deep understanding from such research. But if the techniques used here are related, borrowed, etc. from science, the presentation here is all art (with a few exceptions). But as I am learning, there are those amateurs who have taken it into science, such as spectroscopy, hunting for supernovae, hunting for NEO, recording variable star behavior, etc. Not so exciting for an image presentation site. They have their own sites. |
#... |
|---|
This is equivalent to saying saturation is not a thing, therefore the whole discussion is completely unfounded. Because when you change the color temperature and the gamma this directly affects saturation. When you play with those screen settings you aren't doing anything fundamentally different from what can be done on a bitmap with the base curve and color temperature tools. You are just doing it to a "live" bitmap that is the entire screen. That's why these settings are under "color adjust" in the screen's OSD.Don't believe me? Load any great image on your screen. Then set gamma to 100% and color temperature to the lowest value. Don't look so great now, does it?you can always make a good image look bad...break the screen. I have 4 screens and my images do not look good on them all. But the images I aspire to do look good on them all. |
7.28
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos: I take heart that I am not alone... thanks for that, Rodd, since for me as a beginner here (and having that same feeling) it is especially lonely to look at the work I can produce now and wrongfully try and compare it to everything else I see (as in the IOTD). I don't believe I can meaningfully contribute to the conversation, and yet there is still an urge to at least express my own thought that while the universe is a colorful place, nowadays we have a tendency to colorize it even more than it actually is. And that personally troubles me. And yet perhaps it shouldn't... That bears on my ultimate point, that we are all here for a variety of reasons: some scientific, some artistic and for a whole range of reasons in between. I know what I like (and don't), but always bear in mind an expression in Latin: De Gustibus non est disputandum. I'd roughly translate it as 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder', although it really means that you can't argue with someone's taste. You can't tell me that I like or don't like something! So in the end I try and understand what a person is hoping to accomplish by looking at their portfolio, asking questions, etc. There seems to me to be room enough in the universe for our entire gamut of photographers and their varied interpretations of reality. In the meantime I can hope that tastes change to become more in line with my own--so I don't feel so alone, you understand. Enough said by me. CS, Daniel |
 #... |
|---|
|
Hi Rodd! My answer to all of this is very nicely captured by Trevor in his latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyUr7tDBCe8 People have different taste, and right now it seems to be a lot of color, which might change in the upcoming years. You mentioned the election, same thing, even if I cannot imagine how the "other side" cannot see my opinion. So the majority wins (TP, IOTD as example for us), and the minority has to live with it. But most important is to enjoy what we have and let the night skies above inspire us. Uwe P.S.: I am with you in the minority bucket ... hence I am enjoying your images more than many others. |
6.65
#... |
|---|
|
To me Astrobin is a place where everyone, and anyone can show their view on the universe. All viewpoints are welcome--scientific, artistic, playful and yes even grotesque. The last thing we want is to say this is what we must show or must like on Astrobin. As a scientist myself I can tell you scientists often use distortion from how we view reality, whether in using a log plot or using exaggerated color to bring out something you would otherwise miss, to name a few. And as for art, sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't. I did not get Picasso until an artist told me how he was looking for better ways to capture reality, and then I thought it was so cool because I could finally see what he was doing. If Picasso were an astrophotographer, l hope we would not be on him for his images not being "realistic". I think he could do some really cool stuff on Astrobin. We can like what we like, bookmark what we love, so that is our form of expression for viewing other images. I do agree that not every IOTD is to my taste, though they often are, but someone has a difficult task to choose them, and of course, cannot help but be influenced by what they like. I do hope that they also are trying to understand other viewpoints in their selection. But to me Astrobin is not IOTD, Astrobin is for all of us to freely express our own viewpoints of the skies above. CS for everyone. Rick |
