Starship Asterisk*

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:34 am

Nitpicker wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote: I have long wondered about this, myself. Never came up with any solid conclusion about her always pasty-white depictions.
Same is true for most European religious art (e.g. white Jesus). Most of those artistic traditions formed during the Renaissance, and the people, their towns, and their clothes look very European, no matter who they are or where they're supposed to be.
It started before the modern Europeans. There is evidence that the ancient Greeks and certainly the Romans, depicted an idealized Andromeda, perhaps based more on the fashions and ideals of their own times. The idea that Perseus flew to Andromeda on a winged horse named Pegasus, seems rather more fanciful. Mythology and realism are not natural bedfellows.

People do tend to frame their myths in their own image (except when it suits them otherwise).

by **Nitpicker** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:52 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Cousin Ricky wrote:Odd, Andromeda doesn't look very Ethiopian in this painting. (Unlike say, Egypt, Ethiopia does not have a history of Europeans taking over their dynasties.)
I have long wondered about this, myself. Never came up with any solid conclusion about her always pasty-white depictions.
Same is true for most European religious art (e.g. white Jesus). Most of those artistic traditions formed during the Renaissance, and the people, their towns, and their clothes look very European, no matter who they are or where they're supposed to be.

It started before the modern Europeans. There is evidence that the ancient Greeks and certainly the Romans, depicted an idealized Andromeda, perhaps based more on the fashions and ideals of their own times. The idea that Perseus flew to Andromeda on a winged horse named Pegasus, seems rather more fanciful. Mythology and realism are not natural bedfellows.

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:33 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Cousin Ricky wrote:Odd, Andromeda doesn't look very Ethiopian in this painting. (Unlike say, Egypt, Ethiopia does not have a history of Europeans taking over their dynasties.)
I have long wondered about this, myself. Never came up with any solid conclusion about her always pasty-white depictions.

Same is true for most European religious art (e.g. white Jesus). Most of those artistic traditions formed during the Renaissance, and the people, their towns, and their clothes look very European, no matter who they are or where they're supposed to be.

by **geckzilla** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:27 pm

Cousin Ricky wrote:Odd, Andromeda doesn't look very Ethiopian in this painting. (Unlike say, Egypt, Ethiopia does not have a history of Europeans taking over their dynasties.)

I have long wondered about this, myself. Never came up with any solid conclusion about her always pasty-white depictions.

by **Cousin Ricky** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:57 pm

neufer wrote:
[b][color=#0000FF][size=150]Andromeda (1869) by Paul Gustave Doré[/size][/color][/b]

APOD Robot wrote:
Andromeda on the Rocks

Explanation: Because the stars trailed above the horizon while the picture was made, separate exposures tracking the stars were combined with one of rocks and cliffs made with the camera steadied to create the tantalizing scene.

Odd, Andromeda doesn't look very Ethiopian in this painting. (Unlike say, Egypt, Ethiopia does not have a history of Europeans taking over their dynasties.)

by **neufer** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:23 pm

: [b][color=#0000FF][size=150]Andromeda (1869) by Paul Gustave Doré[/size][/color][/b]

APOD Robot wrote:
Andromeda on the Rocks

Explanation: Because the stars trailed above the horizon while the picture was made, separate exposures tracking the stars were combined with one of rocks and cliffs made with the camera steadied to create the tantalizing scene.

by **APOD Robot** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:37 pm

Andromeda on the Rocks

Explanation: How far can you see? The Andromeda Galaxy 2.5 million light years away is the most distant object easily seen by the unaided eye. Other apparent denizens of the night sky, stars, clusters, and nebulae, typically range from a few hundred to a few thousand light-years away and lie well within our own Milky Way Galaxy. Also known as M31, the Andromeda Galaxy is the faint smudge near top center of this Earth and skyscape, taken from eastern Italy, near Monte Conero on the Adriatic sea coast. From a few centimeters to a few million light-years, the picture demonstrates a stunning range of vision. Though galaxy and seaside rocks could be seen with the eye on that clear summer night, no camera captured this view in a single exposure. Because the stars trailed above the horizon while the picture was made, separate exposures tracking the stars were combined with one of rocks and cliffs made with the camera steadied to create the tantalizing scene.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

by **geckzilla** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:59 pm

RJN wrote:Due to deception and subsequent non-cooperation, the APOD originally posted on this date has now been replaced. The above discussion does not apply to the current APOD on this date. We at APOD apologize the confusion and inconvenience.

I'll go ahead and copy your post at the top of the thread in case future APOD readers stumble across this.

by **RJN** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:11 pm

Due to deception and subsequent non-cooperation, the APOD originally posted on this date has now been replaced. The above discussion does not apply to the current APOD on this date. We at APOD apologize the confusion and inconvenience.

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:09 pm

varadinagypal wrote:I think, given the recent ISS-Saturn fake, and now this picture* there might be two things to do:
1) peer review for APOD - as Chris Peterson suggested.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting routine peer review, only that an author submitting an image to APOD agree to make available the raw images for review if requested. I imagine that happening very, very rarely.

by **varadinagypal** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:37 am

I think, given the recent ISS-Saturn fake, and now this picture* there might be two things to do:
1) peer review for APOD - as Chris Peterson suggested. Noting that deep sky pictures (stacks, subs possibly through filters), planetary images (stacks of raw videos) and other types of pictures (like of an analemma) are composites by definition.
2) Aside from the fact that fakes are just that, fakes (with the intention of commiting fraud), there is a thing: contrary to TWAN, as far as I know, there is no guideline of astrophotography or APOD as a matter of fact.

*which had a forearm obviously retouched: http://csillagtura.ro/projektek/asztrof ... 094097.jpg

by **schmeah** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:30 am

I agree that overly aggressive processing of deep sky images is the norm these days, creating cartoon like images just for effect. Fortunately it would seem that the APOD editors are not overly impressed by this type of processing. "Fake" diffraction spikes, however, are often represented in APOD images but I don't think this is done in a deceptive manner and is probably within the boundaries of "artistic license" which is of course a part of all popular astrophotographs, including APODs.

Derek

by **geckzilla** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:00 am

The definition of "fraud" becomes a bit muddled for deep sky imagery. I find that some astrophotographers zealously colorize their images—sometimes it seems painted on. Then there's the ridiculous use of fake diffraction spikes—that bothers me a lot. And then some people seem to go crazy with the noise smoothing, making images look totally airbrushed. This sort of photoshopping is rampant and receives little attention because it's become the status quo, kind of like how you can't have a person on a magazine cover without making them look way too perfect.

It's one thing to clone out an airplane trail or get rid of some kind of super distracting blooming/charge bleed. Artifacts confuse people and they aren't really in the picture. Things that are added to the image should always be noted by the photographer, at least in a detailed description of the image on the photographer's website if not in an APOD description.

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:46 am

schmeah wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote: I note that this really isn't an issue with deep-sky images. The only time we've had issues it has involved images made from the ground, typically with rather ordinary photographic equipment. In most cases, just providing a video or providing a single raw image would resolve the matter.
However, this could just as easily be an issue with deep sky images. There are certain objects that cannot be captured and presented other than as a composite.

Essentially every deep sky image is a "composite". While I like to see processing details, it's hard to imagine an intent to deceive with such images. Nobody is really interested in claiming that they made some particular deep sky image from a single shot.

The few cases of fraud have all involved misrepresentations of astronomical landscape photography or things requiring exceptional timing, and I think any problems are likely to always be in those categories.

Nobody should care if an image is a "composite" unless the photographer is specifically claiming her image isn't. That's extremely unlikely for a deep sky image.

by **schmeah** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:32 am

Chris Peterson wrote: I note that this really isn't an issue with deep-sky images. The only time we've had issues it has involved images made from the ground, typically with rather ordinary photographic equipment. In most cases, just providing a video or providing a single raw image would resolve the matter.

However, this could just as easily be an issue with deep sky images. There are certain objects that cannot be captured and presented other than as a composite. For example, the Cat's Eye Nebula NGC 6543 requires separate sets of exposures for the bright core and the faint halo which then need to be combined as a composite image, such as I had to do in this image:
http://www.pbase.com/dsantiago/image/143422472

There have been APODs of this target, but they likely were described as composites. And any time we "add" an RGB starfield to a narrow band image, isn't this a composite of sorts? So it is potentially just as much an issue with deep sky images. It just has to be presented as a composite image. And yes, submitting raw images for review would make it nearly impossible to "fake" an image as we have now seen twice in a short period.

Derek

by **Chris Peterson** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:47 pm

RJN wrote:Given recent information about the image, this APOD is now under review. In the original correspondence involving the image, the astrophotographer responded to a question by email with: "Is a single imagen taken with a 70-200 lens a 200mm". That information was then debated and it was concluded that such a single-shot image was indeed possible, and so gave the astrophotographer the benefit of the doubt. For example, we were able to reconstruct a conceptually similar scene with Stellarium, and we were able to satisfy our curiosity about the lack of absorption near the apparent horizon. However, in an email received a few days ago, the astrophotographer apologized and said that the image was actually two photos taken on the same night. Constructive suggestions as to the best course of action APOD should take at this point would be appreciated. We hope to have a decision about the future of this APOD soon. We at APOD apologize for our oversight and the resulting confusion. - RJN

As was discussed on another thread, a helpful and simple fix would be to require the author of any accepted APOD to provide the raw image or images for examination if requested (it would rarely be necessary, and there are a handful of qualified people in this forum who I expect would be happy to check them out if necessary). An author providing such evidence could be assured that the actual data would not be made public without their approval.

I note that this really isn't an issue with deep-sky images. The only time we've had issues it has involved images made from the ground, typically with rather ordinary photographic equipment. In most cases, just providing a video or providing a single raw image would resolve the matter.

by **RJN** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:39 pm

Given recent information about the image, this APOD is now under review. In the original correspondence involving the image, the astrophotographer responded to a question by email with: "Is a single imagen taken with a 70-200 lens a 200mm". That information was then debated and it was concluded that such a single-shot image was indeed possible, and so gave the astrophotographer the benefit of the doubt. For example, we were able to reconstruct a conceptually similar scene with Stellarium, and we were able to satisfy our curiosity about the lack of absorption near the apparent horizon. However, in an email received a few days ago, the astrophotographer apologized and said that the image was actually two photos taken on the same night. Constructive suggestions as to the best course of action APOD should take at this point would be appreciated. We hope to have a decision about the future of this APOD soon. We at APOD apologize for our oversight and the resulting confusion. - RJN

by **Thierry** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:39 pm

I'm a big fan of all the APOD work, and the marvels of nature are really apreciable when the pictures
are not coming from a painting composite software. Unfortunately ,this picture was obviously composite,
made with a first wide angle picture, a second telephoto and a painting software.
It is now a subject of discussion on facebook, twitter etc... Many people have debunked and made reconstitutions of this picture.

-Andromeda of this size could be possible with a telephoto lens and the result would be very different.
-with blur around the people (impossible to get a sharp focus on infinity and grass).
-blurred contout ( those people are alive)
-3 lines starting from the midlle of the hips and going straight through the heads collide, proof of wide angle lens.
-The grass; big pieces of grass at the first meters, and litlle grass below the 3 characters, wide angle picture.
-The first part was made with a lot of light a little time after sunset ( no noise or grain) long histogram showing details.
-Andromeda was low in the sky in guatape the 26th of july at 11h30 pm, sky should be red and very clear.
-Made with this position, the cygnus constellation would be visible on the sky chart of this day and hour (source heavens-above and calsky).

This picture is a shame.

by **keerthi2kiran** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:02 am

Will there be any action taken regarding this? I really hope the image will be taken down.

by **geckzilla** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:59 pm

mexhunter wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
whwang wrote:BTW, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with combining two pictures in photoshop. That should be allowed, as long as the photographer clearly states what has been done to the picture(s).
It's not a composite, though, unless there was a serious lapse in communication between the editor and Hugo. If it's written to be a single exposure in the description then it can be safely assumed that the photographer himself stated explicitly that it is a single exposure.
It is permissible to lie if then apologies offered?
Hugo has accepted that he lie, that image it's a composite.

No, not really. I mean, it's slightly better to confess, but doubtful anyone will trust him again. People who do this cannot expect to be considered for APOD again. Not that it's impossible, just very unlikely... They're just too annoying to deal with. Sometimes I feel that the astrophotographers get together to conspire and submit fakes just to see if they can get one published.

by **MxDamone** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:00 pm

Sadly this was a FRAUD, the autor recognized it was not a single shot and lied about it to made it into APOD.

by **mexhunter** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:22 pm

geckzilla wrote:
whwang wrote:BTW, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with combining two pictures in photoshop. That should be allowed, as long as the photographer clearly states what has been done to the picture(s).
It's not a composite, though, unless there was a serious lapse in communication between the editor and Hugo. If it's written to be a single exposure in the description then it can be safely assumed that the photographer himself stated explicitly that it is a single exposure.

It is permissible to lie if then apologies offered?
Hugo has accepted that he lie, that image it's a composite.

by **geckzilla** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:28 am

Thanks for the link and explanation, you two. Thanks for nothing, Hugo.

by **Astromontufar** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:49 am

mexhunter wrote:The autor has already acknowledged that the picture is a composition and has offered apologies to the Apod editors. This happened in a congress in Buenos Aires. Link in spanish: https://www.facebook.com/sigmas57/posts ... 4261122979

the congress was in Medellin colombia

by **mexhunter** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:05 am

The autor has already acknowledged that the picture is a composition and has offered apologies to the Apod editors. This happened in a congress in Buenos Aires. Link in spanish: https://www.facebook.com/sigmas57/posts ... 4261122979

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

APOD: Andromeda on the Rocks (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)

Re: APOD: Andromeda Rising over Colombia (2016 Apr 19)