A Red Dome Under the Big Dipper (APOD 21 August 2007)
A Red Dome Under the Big Dipper (APOD 21 August 2007)
Sure this photo looks a little strange but its completely fake.
I understand using filters, trick photography for objects in
space to get a different perspective, etc. But to illuminate this
dome with a red light from the inside is just inane and
pointless.
I understand using filters, trick photography for objects in
space to get a different perspective, etc. But to illuminate this
dome with a red light from the inside is just inane and
pointless.
Pointless like a fox...
Personally, I enjoy seeing pictures of the technology that goes into making [apod] photos. Of course, my favorite [apod] photos are usually the real, man-made objects that are _actually_used_ to observe extra-terrestrial objects (for example, I really liked http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070808.html).
I'm always willing to put up with some "fake," man-modified, inanely-colored picture of a star or galaxy because I know that we'll get an explanation of _how_ that picture was captured. Today's [apod] shows us a dramatic, outlined-black-on-red, interior image of a telescope, similar to the kind of instrument that has produced many of your favorite [apod] "trick-"images.
I think everyone here likes [apod] because of its talent for striking a balance between everyone's notions of "good" and "bad" "pictures."
I'm always willing to put up with some "fake," man-modified, inanely-colored picture of a star or galaxy because I know that we'll get an explanation of _how_ that picture was captured. Today's [apod] shows us a dramatic, outlined-black-on-red, interior image of a telescope, similar to the kind of instrument that has produced many of your favorite [apod] "trick-"images.
I think everyone here likes [apod] because of its talent for striking a balance between everyone's notions of "good" and "bad" "pictures."
Professionally done, the image would look as follows:
http://www.lonestarobservatory.org
W Barry Smith
Lone Star Observatory
http://www.lonestarobservatory.org
W Barry Smith
Lone Star Observatory
I think the image is a (reasonably) professional image taken with the exact effect provided as intended for the context of the image. There is no trick photography involved in its production but for a long term exposure as the dome is rotated. It is a very imaginative method to image the interior of the observatory dome from the outside through the slit opening.
I apologize. The picture IS very beautiful and "cool".
I must have been in a poor mood yesterday, which
somehow also gave me the spur to post up to this forum.
I guess the opening question of the caption led me
to expect a celestial cause to the red effect. I'm not
familiar enough with the site to know that its not only
illuminating us about the heavens but also demonstrating
how trick photography is done.
Fake is the wrong word. Trick is better?
I must have been in a poor mood yesterday, which
somehow also gave me the spur to post up to this forum.
I guess the opening question of the caption led me
to expect a celestial cause to the red effect. I'm not
familiar enough with the site to know that its not only
illuminating us about the heavens but also demonstrating
how trick photography is done.
Fake is the wrong word. Trick is better?
- iamlucky13
- Commander
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:28 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
-
- Commander
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:57 pm
- Location: On a boat near Tacoma, WA, usa
- Contact:
The art effects are ok I guess, , *yawns* but what I come here for is great astronomy pictures about things off this planet. This type of picture I can get any time I want to.
Now a great picture of Iapetus would be worth a hundred of these artsy fartsy images, , how about it NASA, going to release any more of Iapetus? hmmmm?
Now a great picture of Iapetus would be worth a hundred of these artsy fartsy images, , how about it NASA, going to release any more of Iapetus? hmmmm?
"It's not what you know, or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you." Will Rodgers 1938
Don't worry too much about it. There are often (heated) discussions on this board concerning anything that would be best considered ART as opposed to science.Sail Away wrote:I apologize. The picture IS very beautiful and "cool".
I must have been in a poor mood yesterday, which
somehow also gave me the spur to post up to this forum.
I guess the opening question of the caption led me
to expect a celestial cause to the red effect. I'm not
familiar enough with the site to know that its not only
illuminating us about the heavens but also demonstrating
how trick photography is done.
Fake is the wrong word. Trick is better?
And why is this so much more professional? Because you did it? or because you paid to have it done?wbsjets wrote:Professionally done, the image would look as follows:
http://www.lonestarobservatory.org
W Barry Smith
Lone Star Observatory
I liked the affects, thought it was a "professionally" executed photograph.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
- iamlucky13
- Commander
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:28 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
Unfortunately, we only get new closeups during flyby's. Cassini is in a very elliptical orbit that takes almost a month to complete, swinging it in as close as the rings, then back out to almost 3 million miles away. The reason is this lets it make the very close approaches it does to this myriad of objects it's observed, despite them being at widely varying distances from Saturn.FieryIce wrote:Art has its place; I just prefer it not on the APOD.
How about more NASA pictures of Hyperion or Enceladus? So NASA what say you?!
However, it looks like there are a quite a few more flyby's of the various targets, including a (I did a double-take when I read this) scheduled 14 mile pass over Enceladus next March!
The schedule is here. It only runs through the formal end of mission in 2008, so hopefully we'll see some more observations of the less well-covered targets during the mission extension.
"Any man whose errors take ten years to correct is quite a man." ~J. Robert Oppenheimer (speaking about Albert Einstein)
- JohnD
- Tea Time, Guv! Cheerio!
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:11 pm
- Location: Lancaster, England
craterchains, FieryIce,
You've missed an obvious conspiracy here. 'Trick' illumination of the telescope dome - Phooey! It's a cloaking device being tested.
We demand more pictures and schematics of the building!
Who owns it again?
New Mexico Tech?
Just next door to Area 66!
Or whatever it's called.
John
You've missed an obvious conspiracy here. 'Trick' illumination of the telescope dome - Phooey! It's a cloaking device being tested.
We demand more pictures and schematics of the building!
Who owns it again?
New Mexico Tech?
Just next door to Area 66!
Or whatever it's called.
John
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:06 pm
- Location: Vancouver Island, BC
- Contact:
To be more blunt than my previous post ofJohnD wrote:craterchains, FieryIce,
You've missed an obvious conspiracy here. 'Trick' illumination of the telescope dome - Phooey! It's a cloaking device being tested.
We demand more pictures and schematics of the building!
Who owns it again?
New Mexico Tech?
Just next door to Area 66!
Or whatever it's called.
John
Art is nice if you're a horses tail and wanna get brushed but it has no place as an APOD picture! So John you can guess where you can put your schematics.Art has its place; I just prefer it not on the APOD.
Tic Toc