1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO.AMATEUR

  • Petapixel. Guy posts fake/cooked images of Mars/moon occultation

    From RichA@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 9 10:02:22 2022
    Petapixel of course didn't catch it.
    Look at the second image.

    https://petapixel.com/2022/12/09/photographer-captures-magical-moment-mars-emerges-from-behind-the-moon/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From palsing@21:1/5 to RichA on Fri Dec 9 13:25:33 2022
    On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:02:24 AM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
    Petapixel of course didn't catch it.
    Look at the second image.

    https://petapixel.com/2022/12/09/photographer-captures-magical-moment-mars-emerges-from-behind-the-moon/

    I think it is disingenuous of you to state that this photographer "cooked" or "faked" his image. He was very forthcoming about the image being a mosaic and that post-processing was needed to clean things up due to the variable seeing.

    I suppose you would also claim that virtually all photos from either Hubble or Webb are also just faked, right? I can assure you that they undergo heavy processing.

    I myself think that Andrew McCarthy gave us a terrific photo. I would hang it on my wall!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 9 15:49:46 2022
    On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 13:25:33 -0800 (PST), palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:02:24 AM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
    Petapixel of course didn't catch it.
    Look at the second image.

    https://petapixel.com/2022/12/09/photographer-captures-magical-moment-mars-emerges-from-behind-the-moon/

    I think it is disingenuous of you to state that this photographer "cooked" or "faked" his image. He was very forthcoming about the image being a mosaic and that post-processing was needed to clean things up due to the variable seeing.

    I suppose you would also claim that virtually all photos from either Hubble or Webb are also just faked, right? I can assure you that they undergo heavy processing.

    I myself think that Andrew McCarthy gave us a terrific photo. I would hang it on my wall!

    Heck, most modern cameras take multiple exposures and then internally
    adjust them, selectively mosaic them, and cleverly stack them to
    maximize sharpness and dynamic range. Their "raw" images have already
    had that done with ordinary shots of people or landscapes. They simply
    automate what was done here manually.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to palsing on Fri Dec 9 14:34:51 2022
    On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 16:25:34 UTC-5, palsing wrote:
    On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:02:24 AM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
    Petapixel of course didn't catch it.
    Look at the second image.

    https://petapixel.com/2022/12/09/photographer-captures-magical-moment-mars-emerges-from-behind-the-moon/
    I think it is disingenuous of you to state that this photographer "cooked" or "faked" his image. He was very forthcoming about the image being a mosaic and that post-processing was needed to clean things up due to the variable seeing.

    I suppose you would also claim that virtually all photos from either Hubble or Webb are also just faked, right? I can assure you that they undergo heavy processing.

    I myself think that Andrew McCarthy gave us a terrific photo. I would hang it on my wall!

    Sure, just like you might a 4000mm shot of the moon superimposed on a shot of a city skyline, because it looks good. But that would be demonstrably fake whereas this is somewhat fake. Personally, I find the sharpness of Mars against the less-sharp
    moon to be distracting so I wouldn't put it on a wall. There is going to be a lot more of this, given the growth of "AI" interpretation of images now being built into phones and cameras.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to RichA on Fri Dec 9 22:44:18 2022
    On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

    Personally, I find the sharpness of Mars against the less-sharp
    moon to be distracting so I wouldn't put it on a wall.

    Perhaps his telescope was tracking Mars instead of the Moon?

    I know I'd be inclined to rotate it by 90 degrees before putting
    it on a wall, since I'd like Mars' poles to be vertical.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to RichA on Fri Dec 9 22:40:29 2022
    On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

    Sure, just like you might a 4000mm shot of the moon superimposed on a shot of a
    city skyline, because it looks good. But that would be demonstrably fake

    Define "fake". Somebody uses a ridiculously long telephoto lens to photograph the Moon
    when it is close to the horizon, and the shot includes buildings.

    If that's all you do, you haven't faked anything. The photo records what the camera saw.

    It certainly _is_ true the photo doesn't look like anything we would normally see. The Moon
    "isn't that big", as we all know.

    So the photo is a highly magnified image of a small part of what we would see, if we
    were so far away from those buildings that we would hardly be able to make them out.

    An unexpected perspective is not the same as something that is falsified.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Sun Dec 11 15:00:23 2022
    On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 17:49:50 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 13:25:33 -0800 (PST), palsing <pnal...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:02:24 AM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
    Petapixel of course didn't catch it.
    Look at the second image.

    https://petapixel.com/2022/12/09/photographer-captures-magical-moment-mars-emerges-from-behind-the-moon/

    I think it is disingenuous of you to state that this photographer "cooked" or "faked" his image. He was very forthcoming about the image being a mosaic and that post-processing was needed to clean things up due to the variable seeing.

    I suppose you would also claim that virtually all photos from either Hubble or Webb are also just faked, right? I can assure you that they undergo heavy processing.

    I myself think that Andrew McCarthy gave us a terrific photo. I would hang it on my wall!
    Heck, most modern cameras take multiple exposures and then internally
    adjust them, selectively mosaic them, and cleverly stack them to
    maximize sharpness and dynamic range. Their "raw" images have already
    had that done with ordinary shots of people or landscapes. They simply automate what was done here manually.

    It's not the same as creating an image out of two completely different ones. Astronomical cameras do this to avoid images blurred by the atmosphere. Consumer cameras have it as a feature
    to composite same images to increase resolution. Stitching images is creating a widefield image (again, of the same scene) because the camera's lens isn't wide enough to do it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)