Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:I think the image is better that way. In reality, the horizon is not horizontal at this location- the mountain range is distant at the left and gets closer as it moves to the right, with the foreground valley low and distant to the left and high and near to the right. To me, this is aesthetically pleasing; it's how I'd shoot the scene in daylight.

Well, I won't argue about what pleases you aesthetically, and if that's your view, I'd concede that this might also be the vision of the artist, but the image does not hold the perspective even in the situation you describe. A horizon line, not to be mistaken with a horizontal line defining the separation between land and sky, is horizontal by definition, slightly curved at best. This horizon line is tilted,and the tilt is unrelated to the characteristics of the landscape AFAICT. If you rotate the image it 1.3 degrees, the features on the left will still be lower than the features on the right, but the perspective and the horizon line are better resolved. Panoramas can be tricky, especially because panorama stitching software sometimes warps the landscape. Many photo stitching apps even attempt to guess what the horizon line is, for a reason. In any case, I don't think this panorama was successfully resolved from this point of view and I think if we asked anyone with experience shooting landscapes they would likely agree.

MAB wrote:Actually, my biggest "problem" with this image, from an artistic perspective (the author claims it's fiction after all and makes a point about what art should be) is that the horizon is not horizontal.

I think the image is better that way. In reality, the horizon is not horizontal at this location- the mountain range is distant at the left and gets closer as it moves to the right, with the foreground valley low and distant to the left and high and near to the right. To me, this is aesthetically pleasing; it's how I'd shoot the scene in daylight.

Actually, my biggest "problem" with this image, from an artistic perspective (the author claims it's fiction after all and makes a point about what art should be) is that the horizon is not horizontal. It was the first thing I noticed. More even than the also obvious difference in hue and brightness between land and sky. From an artistic perspective I don't care if the image is real or not, but it's the first landscape made by a "pro" I see that fails to maintain a horizon line the way it should be. The author may claim that he didn't fix it because that was part of his vision, but I honestly would have a hard time thinking that's the case. To me it's a rather amateurish oversight. Whether the image qualifies for an APOD is not for us to decide, but I was surprised to see so much talk about whether fiction is allowed here, and when it came to spot something so basic, nobody, starting from the author, actually noticed it. No doubt most people here must be scientists

To clear up the confusion about the POV of this photo and these two mountains. This is a real place and I have been there. It is on highway 299 north/northeast of Redding (70 miles) about 7 to 10 miles out of McArthur heading away from Redding. Put those names in Google Maps or Earth. The photo is looking south/southwest. The geology of the area is made of a number lave flows hundreds of feet thick. The photographer is at the edge of one of these flows or benches. The dark horizon (as someone mentioned) are distant mountains that 299 crosses over coming from Redding. The image looks like it was shot in moon light or color corrected (bluish) for that effect. That the image is a composite does not bother me at all. Most of the images we see here are manipulated somehow to show some aspect that we could not see with our own eyes. I can't say what the Milky way would look like from this POV but the creativity of arcing from Lassen to Shasta is great.

BTW I liked this image so much I put it on my desktop.

Received in an email from Dr. Nemiroff: We generally don't post photoshopped montages, but we do make mistakes on occasion.- RJN

Hope it is OK by him that I put it here, but I think it is good to know.

tom h

One of you might send an email to Jerry Bonnell or Robert Nemiroff (I'd try Jerry first right now) with your concerns about the description.

Chris, I'm on your side. ("I don't think it should be on APOD at all.") I'm talking about the person who "gave credit" to APOD. I still don't think APOD people knew what the photo was. I think (and hope) that they would have said a little bit more in the description if they did know. If they did know, and that is all they said, then as I said, I need to recalibrate my expectations of what I see here! I have been looking at APOD nearly every day for as long as it has existed. Yes, there are all kind of photos that are "touched up" in all manners of acceptable ways, but this is the first one I've questioned. And, as implied earlier, that may be only because the photographer did not see a problem with having Sagittarius in the north.

rocksnstars wrote:I guess honesty has become a relative term. "..exposures tracking Earth and sky were made separately" is beyond vague to those of us who never expected to see a photo like this on APOD. I really can't believe they published it with only those words, knowing the whole story. Do they ever reply here?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using separate exposures and images for the sky and the Earth foreground. That's a reasonable (often only) way to combine the two without getting star trails. It's no different from a variety of other mosaic techniques, or images made from overlaying different data sets. The only thing that makes this image questionable for an APOD is that the region of sky imaged and the region of Earth imaged don't (and can't) line up in reality. So we end up with a fantasy image that is not readily identifiable as such.

I guess honesty has become a relative term. "..exposures tracking Earth and sky were made separately" is beyond vague to those of us who never expected to see a photo like this on APOD. I really can't believe they published it with only those words, knowing the whole story. Do they ever reply here?

tom hoffelder

bystander wrote:(37 APODs, 92 TWAN, and numerous national publications) (what were your credentials, again)

I can walk through the analysis in detail if anyone cares enough to double-check the assumptions behind it. It's certainly possible I'm missing something.

Every photo with point-like stars and some distant earthbound foreground without motion blur is a montage of earth and sky.
The only exception that I know of is the APOD of 13 March 2004.

Well, he really does hire out a lab to stitch his photos together for him. Don't I feel stupid for making assumptions in an earlier thread, now. Who knows what that lab did to the photo but they definitely don't have a strong knowledge of how the atmosphere works. That cave pic is just plain wrong looking regardless of how "real" it is.

And now I know why he never responded to my email about that geminid photo, either...

Lazlo Nibble wrote:... unlike with True Image from False Kiva. That case is far worse because of the repeated claims to the contrary, from the implication in the "title" of the image through the ensuing discussion here. (In brief: The shadows on the bluffs could only have been created by light from the horizon shortly after sunset; despite Pacholka's claims in the discussion thread, the moon was in the wrong part of the sky at the time. But the sun set several hours before the Milky Way reached the depicted position in the sky -- indicating that the sky and landscape could not have been photographed at the same time.)

Yes, obviously, you know so much more about the conditions under which the photographs were made than the photographer. And, obviously, Mr. Pacholka is so unsuccessful that he needs to lie about how he photgraphed a particular scene. And NASA, TWAN. NPS, et al, are so gullible that they just assume that everything is authentic.

(37 APODs, 92 TWAN, and numerous national publications) (what were your credentials, again)

I'll give Tony and APOD credit here, at least they were honest (if vague) about the creation process in the description and in Tony's response here -- unlike with True Image from False Kiva. That case is far worse because of the repeated claims to the contrary, from the implication in the "title" of the image through the ensuing discussion here. (In brief: The shadows on the bluffs could only have been created by light from the horizon shortly after sunset; despite Pacholka's claims in the discussion thread, the moon was in the wrong part of the sky at the time. But the sun set several hours before the Milky Way reached the depicted position in the sky -- indicating that the sky and landscape could not have been photographed at the same time.)

In a journalistic context, images manipulated like this have to be explicitly labeled as "photoillustrations", and in my opinion the same should be true on APOD. We're not talking about dodging and burning here -- we're talking about creating an image of something that didn't actually happen (and in this particular case, couldn't happen). Failure to disclose when this is done isn't just bad because it's dishonest, it's bad because it makes people (justifiably) skeptical of other spectacular photos that were created without that kind of trickery, which in turn degrades the impact and value of that kind of work.

Changing the subject somewhat, the sky portion of the photo could have been "flipped" to put Sgr in the southwest, over Lassen. It still would not have been reality, since the Milky Way would then be curving up over the photographer if that is where Sgr actually was, but it would probably have made it less likely to be decoded, since the most prominent sky feature would at least be where it could be. The "mirror image" would not likely have been noticeable.

tonyhallas wrote:By this definition, every narrow band image, every CCD image, every DSLR image, every negative scanned to digital image ... even the images of Ansel Adams ( a superb lab technician) are fakes. Why? Because the images have been modified. The minute you touch those pixels, or burn and dodge like Adams did, the image is modified. Do you want to discuss where to draw the line?

I disagree with the use of "fake" in this context. Simply modifying an image isn't enough. It's a question of intent. Where the intent is journalistic or scientific, these lines have been largely defined. Narrow band images don't look like what the eye sees, but they are an accurate reflection of reality. Images that have had their contrast stretched still reflect reality. But images that have been structurally modified do not (remember the flack that National Geographic took when they digitally shifted the position of one of the Pyramids to make an image fit their cover? That's one of the incidents that helped define what is and is not okay.) Now there's nothing wrong with structural modification, as long as the intent is purely artistic. My only complaint here is that the content was presented in a way that made it seem like a realistic image- something that could actually be seen, but for the sensitivity of the eye. APOD sometimes presents artistic impressions, or even outright fantasy. That's fine, as long as there is no possibility for confusion. As a site that primarily presents material of high scientific quality, it is important to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding.

I really want to know 1) did the APOD people know the whole story, and 2) if not, why not? If they did, and published it with no explanation, we all need to recalibrate our concept of what we expect here. I guess I mean people like Chris and I do...

I don't think "fake" is the right word, Tony. "Confusing" or even "unintentionally deceptive" would be more appropriate. Your emotional appeals about touching the hearts of millions of people on Christmas Day don't change the fact that it managed to confuse us. As an artist myself I know we have to take criticism from all angles. Sometimes it helps you to become better at what you do and sometimes it's meaningless insults. I hardly think anyone here intended to insult you, so don't take it so personally.

Hello group,

I have to agree with some of you that someone using this image to plot their way by the stars has had it ... isn't going to happen. This image started as a trip to the Fall River Golf Course ... we discovered this overlook from which you could see Mt. Lassen all the way to Mt. Shasta. In my mind I saw it at night with the Milky Way going from volcano to volcano ... OBVIOUSLY impossible since the volcanoes run N- S. But visually ... wow ... I have to tell you all that this image touched the hearts of millions of people on Christmas Day ... I had many, many compliments ... more than any other image I have ever done.

But this raises an issue with which I have been doing battle for some time ... and that is the issue of the "authentic" image. What is this? We already know that most people loved this image ... but to some, knowing the alignment of everything ... it had no value because it was a "fake". Vision counts for nothing, art counts for nothing, emotional impact counts for nothing ... the image is not allowed by the "authenticity police" ... oh poor world!

By this definition, every narrow band image, every CCD image, every DSLR image, every negative scanned to digital image ... even the images of Ansel Adams ( a superb lab technician) are fakes. Why? Because the images have been modified. The minute you touch those pixels, or burn and dodge like Adams did, the image is modified. Do you want to discuss where to draw the line? Should there be an "authenticity congress" complete with lobbyists to set standards?

Art doesn't work this way ...

In this case, I would have had no problem mentioning that the Milky Way was taken seperately the night before and strategically positioned over the volcanoes ... it doesn't detract from the vision of the image. Whether or not "astronomical art" can be used as an APOD is left to the discretion of the hosts who are artists in their own right.

Hope you all have a great and creative 2010,

Clear skies,

Tony

Amen! Thank you Chris!
tom hoffelder

BMAONE23 wrote:Looking at this map of shasta area I would say that the image was taken from somewhere southeast of Shasta from a fairly elevated position Like the top of Black Fox Mountain or farther east. This would allow for the Galactic center to be in the west (setting in the early evenng of late autumn) The view of shasta must be from the east because this is the only view that doesn't allow for the inclusion of shastina in the image. This also properly orients the Shasts/Lassen alignment in the image. I think the arc of the MW is properly aligned with the mountains in the image as viewed from the east.

I played around with a map and star chart for about a half hour, and it appears there's no place where you could ever see this image in reality. Any viewpoint that has the southern Milky Way over Shasta places the northern Milky Way substantially to the north, making it nowhere near Lassen.

It seems the image was entirely fabricated for aesthetic purposes- something that isn't really made clear in the caption. Personally, I don't think it should be an APOD at all. In fact, I consider this kind of extreme Photoshopping to be ethically dubious, since it misrepresents reality in a way that could easily lead to confusion (quite different from, say, a fantastic piece of space art). The evidence of that misrepresentation is right here in this forum: a handful of people with a good understanding of astronomy, geography, and imaging had to spend a fair bit of time analyzing the image in order to figure out that it doesn't even approximate a realistic scene.

According to the photographer's website, the photos were taken at the Golden State Star Party this year, which was held late June near Adin CA. Adin is about 60 miles east and 10 miles south of Shasta. For Sgr to be over Shasta, Sgr would have to set north of due west. As you know, Sgr sets in the southwest, for us, since it is south of the celestial equator. I think the Milky Way was taken facing more or less east and was then pasted over the top of the land photo, which was taken facing west. This would "flip" the southern part of the Milky Way to the north. The first comment by geckzilla, about the horizon, is another clue.

Looking at this map of shasta area I would say that the image was taken from somewhere southeast of Shasta from a fairly elevated position Like the top of Black Fox Mountain or farther east. This would allow for the Galactic center to be in the west (setting in the early evenng of late autumn) The view of shasta must be from the east because this is the only view that doesn't allow for the inclusion of shastina in the image. This also properly orients the Shasts/Lassen alignment in the image. I think the arc of the MW is properly aligned with the mountains in the image as viewed from the east.

I spent some time in the area in the 90's, but yesterday when first seeing the photo I had forgotten that Shasta is north of Lassen. And not knowing exactly where the photo was taken, I thought maybe Shasta was south and the photographer was to the west of the mountains, looking east. That resulted in an impression of the photo being more or less an actual view, and the little phrase "exposures tracking Earth and sky were made separately" didn't mean much. (Still wouldn't if I hadn't done some checking.) Since most people will not have checked into the details, or skimmed the phrase, how many know that the photo is basically a fake? (That is what I call them.) Yes, it is beautiful, but if an APOD photo is something along those lines, maybe a somewhat more detailed explanation should be in the description . Or maybe I'm just a little too much into the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

rocksnstars wrote: it says "Earth and sky were made separately."

I really have to stop skimming over things so quickly. Somehow I missed this part of the description entirely. Now I realize my first post was redundant. Oops.