Buying diffraction artifacts

[mmirot]

Now for a only 59.95 USD you can buy spider artifacts for your refractor

http://actions.home.att.net/StarSpikes.html

I am not joking


Max

[Niall Saunders]

Juan,

Surely you must include this with the very next release. In fact could you not provide a group of processes under the "I have spent hours trying to eliminate all these artifacts, so now I will add them in afterwards" heading 

My money is waiting . . . .

Cheers,

[Juan Conejero]

I love the "Pro" suffix. Really impressive. And some say that PixInsight is expensive

This is an excellent example of the bad practices so common in astrophotography these days. It is not very dangerous though, mainly due to the conspicuously ridiculous results of the "tool". Much worse are other "techniques" that involve --and intend to provide justification to-- arbitrary manipulations of the data without any documentary basis.

The worst part is that it is becoming more and more difficult to compete with arbitrarily manipulated images. No matter what we do, hand-painted images can always be more stunning, win more APODs, and gain more reputation. Oh well...

[Niall Saunders]

Juan, what a feeble excuse 

Although, seriously, maybe all of the terrible processing stages of the 'image painters' will have to eventually be migrated to PI - just to get the 'enemy' to consider changing sides 

Perhaps we need a PI module that can read PS 'add-ins' and 'actions' !!

Cheers,

[Juan Conejero]

Niall,

Sorry! One of my (numerous) defects is that I tend to be too vehement sometimes, and it is obvious that this morning was one of those times

How about a MagicalTransformation process and a Magic category? 

[Niall Saunders]

Exactly - that's a more 'positive' approach Juan.

You need to write a module that interrogates the name assigned to an image, and then Google's for an appropriate and equivalent APOD, before performing a StarAlignment and then a 50% blend in PixelMath. That shoudl satisfy everybody who hasn't experienced PI (Oh, and you could implement the result as a 'Layer', so that they can choose to airbrush in only those parts of the image that they want to use, by way of some clever masking algorithm).

We'll soon have so many new users that you will be able to hang up your keyboard and retire.

[oh-oh, here come the pixel police, again  ]
         

[Carlos Milovic]

PixInsight as a whole is pure magic


Seriously, something like that may be under Painting.

[Simon Hicks]

If anyone wants a whole array of unwanted artifacts, then I am happy for them to image through my setup.....I only charge $500 per hour of imaging.....artifacts galore! 

[Niall Saunders]

I only charge $500 per hour of imaging

Aye, ye can ayewis trust a canny Scot tae cash in on ither's misfortun'     

[mmirot]

Exactly - that's a more 'positive' approach Juan.

You need to write a module that interrogates the name assigned to an image, and then Google's for an appropriate and equivalent APOD, before performing a StarAlignment and then a 50% blend in PixelMath. That shoudl satisfy everybody who hasn't experienced PI (Oh, and you could implement the result as a 'Layer', so that they can choose to airbrush in only those parts of the image that they want to use, by way of some clever masking algorithm).

We'll soon have so many new users that you will be able to hang up your keyboard and retire.

[oh-oh, here come the pixel police, again  ]
         

An artifact maker or is going too far. 

However, I am waiting to buy  the squeal ... nebula faker it will be 99.99 8)


The problems is not is the tools. Layers and masks can be very useful.

Much of the finger painting came about because of lack of better techniques.

The astroimaging community has to point out what has now crossed way over the line in to popular art.

We also have to recognize there will be gray areas.

Max

[Nocturnal]

I actually had someone take one of my images and add spikes to it with that aforementioned 'tool'. He did that because my setup causes some irregular diffraction spikes due to the corners on my camera and the wires sticking out in one direction. I politely told him I preferred images without spikes and certainly would never add them on purpose. And this person is a seasoned practitioner who I otherwise respect for his opinion.

So yeah, this whole 'painting on the image' is a no-no to me as well.