6.71
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
 Gary (founder of this group forum) just encouraged us to post about our failed experiments. I was a bit hesitant to post about my failed fine-art attempts before, but I think Gary is right that maybe it will foster some good discussion and help others avoid pitfalls. What I was trying to accomplish with the image above was a fine-art, high-contrast, black-and-white rendition of the Boston City Skyline and Charles River with the Orion constellation (and nebulae) coming out of the light pollution dome. The reason it failed was the image quality is not good enough for a fine art print. I only achieved what I'd consider smartphone quality. The saga ;) : I had major obstacles in even achieving the above photo. Firstly, to get that perspective I was shooting from the top of a parking garage (took lots of scouting locations to find), and many nights the top of the parking garage was closed due to icy conditions. I just had to drive there to find this out, as there was no one to call. Secondly, in my planning, the photo was more interesting with the Orion constellation closer to the city skyline (different time of year) at 35mm on the ASI1600, but I realized in testing that the light pollution dome was too strong when orion was that low. This also changed my strategy with lens selection, and I ended up going much wider (14mm) at a different time of year. By going wider, I think I introduced serious bandpass issues with my 5nm Ha filter, as all the stars (even at center) were not round even stopped down to f/4.0. My initial plan was to also shoot the city in Ha, as my at home experiments showed I could get decent signal with long enough exposures. But again, I realized my tests at home were with different optics and the 14mm was just not delivering sufficient quality, so I ended up shooting the city parts (with mount off) with the Luminance filter. For me, this partly ruined the 'concept' of the photo which was "Boston in H-alpha". So, what did I learn? The photo I was actually imagining is a mosaic image shot at perhaps 135mm f.l. I think this would give me the details I want for a print, and avoid the bandpass issues I was having with such a wide angle lens. The problems with the new plan: To get the FOV I want, this would be many panels. Given the difficulties with the location; I don't think the new plan is feasible. I still have this image stuck in my head, but I'm not sure I have the motivation to try again after sinking probably 40 hours in to this image, which did not meet my expectations. |
11.07
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thanks for posting this Nico. I have often wondered about shooting the city in Narrowband. Might a compromise of 35mm and a smaller mosaic help? Also, any thought about HOO? |
|
6.71
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Kevin Morefield: Wow, Kevin, you just reminded me I left out a crucial part of the story. I guess I blocked it from my mind because I was so disappointed that a mosaic wasn't working for me. Before I ordered the 14mm lens, I tried exactly what you suggest, a smaller 4 panel mosaic at 35mm. I realized that the light pollution gradient from the city was actually part of the shot I wanted to capture. I wasn't going for an 'impossible' image, where you see a city skyline, but the LP dome is mysteriously gone. Trying to do a mosaic where you keep the light pollution gradient intact, but seamlessly merge the tiles, was a non-starter (should have realized). I then tried removing the light pollution gradient from the tracked shots and leaving it in with non-tracked foreground shots (the city) and blending the two together. While this strategy may work for some people, I didn't feel like I was accurately representing the scene any more. The light pollution dome in the shorter foreground shots didn't look like the light pollution in the longer, tracked shots. In attempting to process it all, it felt like I might as well have taken the Orion data from a controlled, easy environment and then gone to the parking garage to shoot the foreground and pasted it on. So I abandoned the mosaic after one night of experiments, and tried with the 14mm lens, which is what I ended up sharing despite the low quality. Maybe I'm overthinking this. HOO: that would be awesome, but for me the first step would be to get something I like in a single channel. |
11.33
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
With the caveat that I readily admit that I don't know "jack" about art other than I know what I find pleasing, I have to tell you that I really like this image. The city-scape in monochrome. It has a sort of nostalgic feel to it. But then you couple that with the LP dome, which in my humble opinion, is wonderfully rendered dissolving into the sky is very cool and the message that it conveys is likely to be different for different people. Again, not being a person who has studied art and like I said, really don't know much about it other than what I find pleasing, I have to say this is to my eye, far from a failed experiment. |
19.68
#... |
|---|
| Thank you for sharing your experiment and wonderful image with us, Nico. The details of your approach and your thought process are really valuable. I suspect that several of us have considered (or perhaps attempted) the shot you created. With your generous narrative all of us will not start from a more informed place. "Standing of the shoulders of giants" is a phrase that applies to many endeavors, including the creation of art. |
|
19.68
#... |
|---|
Gary Lopez: Thanks for your comment, Mike. I think that for our group what we find pleasing will identify what we consider art. I suspect that very few (if any) of us have formally studied art. I propose that we go forward based on what we like. What I have learned in the last year of offering my images through one of the local galleries is that different audiences have different tastes. For example, one of my images, Melotte 15 (entitled Islands in a Radiant Sea in the gallery, https://www.astrobin.com/pymkq8/?nc=user) is one of the top sellers (as a 40"x60" metallic paper print face mounted on acrylic). Those that buy it are into space, science, and the dramatic mystery of the cosmos. By contrast, another big seller is an impressionist treatment of Cygnus Wall (https://www.astrobin.com/2qdadm/?nc=user, entitled Celestial Coastline in the gallery, 35"x40" printed on hand-made water color paper and mounted a a floater frame). Those that buy this image are intrigued by the backstory of the object (a ridge of gas and dust 20M LY long), but are also considering it as a abstract work that fits with their home decor. I guess that my point is that I believe that art is defined by the audience. If people find an image compelling, especially if they want to live with it, it is art. My two cents. CS, Gary |
