Starless images, do you think they're OK?

A short prologue, I've recently started to separate the stars and DSO when I'm processing my images. I've found it a powerful technique for getting more detail out of the nebula without distorting or blowing out the stars. It's worth pointing out that I only started doing astrophotography in January of this year, so it's fairly new to me.

So, what I've found in doing this is some of the images, in my opinion, look better without the stars added back in. The structure of the nebulosity is clearer and there's less distraction from the subject.

For example, I've recently uploaded an image of IC1318A with stars and without stars. I think I prefer the one without!

What's your opinion on starless images? Is there a place for them with the right subject, or is it unnatural and stars should always be blended back in?

NOTE: This question is about your own preference, not whether AstroBin should ban them from the platform.

While I personally prefer images with stars, it is perfectly fine to post starless images as many members here (including myself) are doing. Actually it took a lot of processing skills in the past to create starless images when there were no (semi)automatic tools for star removal at hand. So please keep posting your images with or without stars.

Cheers & CS
Fritz

Hi @Adam Hainsworth,

Thats a tricky question due to there's no a correct answer and it will depend on the preferences of the people who process their images.
If the question is if in Astrobin should be allowed the fact of upload starless pictures to highlight some aspects of the nebula's structures for example, my answer will be... why not? Everyone could do it because I think there's no rule forbidden it. If the question is about my own preference... I'd rather images with stars because is much closer on what we see or better on what we shoot.

But that's like other tricky questions? Which are the correct color of the Universe? No one knows, we only see the visible spectrum and it's passing by some intermediates like lenses, camera sensors capability, stacking and processing program algorithms... Of course what's the reference, our limited eyes? I don't think so. What I'm trying to say is that palettes are preferences of the astrophotographer like publish starless pictures (in fashion or not is another question).

Kind regards

Dani

Daniel Arenas:
If the question is about my own preference...

The question is definitely about your own preference, I don't think AstroBin should ban anything that prevents someones create freedom! haha

Daniel Arenas:
palettes are preferences of the astrophotographer

I completely agree, I love the diversity of photo's on AstroBin. It's amazing how one subject can be processed in so many different ways. I'm hoping to upgrade to a mono camera at some point so I can try different pallets out. The simplicity of an OSC camera is great and has helped me get into the hobby, but I'm always in awe of images taken in SHO for example.

Fritz:
Actually it took a lot of processing skills in the past to create starless images when there were no (semi)automatic tools for star removal at hand.

Yes, I didn't realise how easy it was to do with Starnet++. I thought it was going to be a lot more difficult to achieve. It wasn't perfect, and still needed a little spot healing, but for the most part, it did a great job.

What about starless images *with* stars? Like lunar and planetary? Unlike starless nebula images, it’s a ‘fabrication’ of two different images, but towards a more, not less, realistic representation.

Cheers,
Scott

In AP do whatever you like and enjoy it.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Well, what I want to vote on, isn't one of the options.

So I'll go for:

D) Do whatever the hell you want and stop caring about what people think.
And it's my standard answer every time someone makes a topic about "what is correct", "what is right", "how should it look"

There is no right or wrong way to do any type of photography, not just astrophotography.
Once the data collection is complete, it's all up to you.. you can go for accuracy, you can go for art, you can go for creativity, it doesn't matter.

If you're not working at NASA or any other space agency, and as long as you're not making claims about something that isn't real (for example; creating fake colour comets and pretending they are real and sending them to news agencies to get featured) - you have no obligation to be scientifically accurate.. NASA isn't even always scientifically accurate, or we wouldn't be having false colour SHO images.

Well, what I want to vote on, isn't one of the options.

So I'll go for:

D) Do whatever the hell you want and stop caring about what people think.
And it's my standard answer every time someone makes a topic about "what is correct", "what is right", "how should it look"

There is no right or wrong way to do any type of photography, not just astrophotography.
Once the data collection is complete, it's all up to you.. you can go for accuracy, you can go for art, you can go for creativity, it doesn't matter.

If you're not working at NASA or any other space agency, and as long as you're not making claims about something that isn't real (for example; creating fake colour comets and pretending they are real and sending them to news agencies to get featured) - you have no obligation to be scientifically accurate.. NASA isn't even always scientifically accurate, or we wouldn't be having false colour SHO images.

Yes, but.... I think most of us, most of the time, are striving towards some sort of accuracy. And whether that involves looking at other's images, including HST, or critiques from AP forum members, feedback is part of the process. I think where we really diverge, is the question of what accuracy means. Is it what the eye sees, what the camera sees, or what's really out there?....Of course, all three are just as accurate, or inaccurate, according to the intent of the imager. A multiverse of sorts....

Not advocating, just devilish.....

Cheers,
Scott

Not much for me to add here, but I’ll just say when I started 2-3 years ago I was never a big “starless” image person but as I started working with starless images they grew on me. In fact I have 2 in my profile. This is my favorite one. https://www.astrobin.com/yvnnr4/D/ I posted this one with and without stars. I still like images with stars for the most part better then starless images but every once and a while the right object hits my fancy. I think as far as starless verses stars its “artists prerogative” , after all its your image. You can show it however you like.
I also agree with @Scott Badger in that we (at least I) try to be as accurate as possible with the images so they are somewhat natural in appearance. But we can become creative when we process in SHO, HSO etc.. and thats the artistic part of an image.

Dale

I wasn't a fan of starless images when I first started astrophotography but I've grown to appreciate how they can highlight detail in nebulosity. I still mostly prefer images with small/reduced stars though as it helps to show just how absolutely huge these DSOs are with the stars in front of them, it helps to show a sense of scale.

I prefer your image with the stars @Adam Hainsworth, the stars are quite subtle and don't overwhelm the target, but they are both great images.

Sure, post all the starless images you want, but don't post them as separate images from the the original image, if it is from the same data it's a revision.
Also, you are busy showing us your starless images remember that all your separate bicolors or narrow band colors from the same data are not considered separate images to be posted, this also basically applies to crops too.
One more thing, we are all here to learn and participate and grow as astro photographers, but just because you have learned an exciting new process doesn't mean it should be posted as a public image, especially when you have already shown us the original image. Use revision.

https://welcome.astrobin.com/features/image-revisions

scott

"You" used in general, not anyone personally

https://welcome.astrobin.com/features/image-revisions

There is an obvious contradiction here. You are claiming to only solicit people’s opinions on starless images and not whether or not they should be prohibited, yet the title of the thread you created says “Starless images, should they be outlawed?” Outlawing something means banning or prohibiting it.

Sure, post all the starless images you want, but don't post them as separate images from the the original image, if it is from the same data it's a revision.
Also, while you are busy showing us your starless images remember that all your separate bicolors or narrow band colors from the same data are not considered separate images to be posted, this also basically applies to crops too.
One more thing, we are all here to learn and participate and grow as astro photographers, but just because you have learned an exciting new process doesn't mean it should be posted as a public image, especially when you have already shown us the original image. Use revision.

https://welcome.astrobin.com/features/image-revisions

Scott

They are posted as revisions, Scott. I just put a direct link to the starless revision to make it easier to access, sorry if that has confused things!

@AstroFckups
I wasn't a fan of starless images when I first started astrophotography but I've grown to appreciate how they can highlight detail in nebulosity. I still mostly prefer images with small/reduced stars though as it helps to show just how absolutely huge these DSOs are with the stars in front of them, it helps to show a sense of scale.

I prefer your image with the stars @Adam Hainsworth, the stars are quite subtle and don't overwhelm the target, but they are both great images.

I think I'm with you there, I like the detail that starless images show. However, I do think having stars in, even if they're faint, makes the image more realistic.

There is an obvious contradiction here. You are claiming to only solicit people’s opinions on starless images and not whether or not they should be prohibited, yet the title of the thread you created says “Starless images, should they be outlawed?” Outlawing something means banning or prohibiting it.

Thanks, Arun, duly noted! I've updated the title to avoid confusion, it was probably a bit 'click-baity' anyway

I think starless images are great. Huge Ha regions for example, starless images showcase the region better. A lot of people's images are borderline starless anyways if you take in the way they process. Most of the small stars never actually make it back into the final image. I don't ever post starless images but I do enjoy a good one.

The only good reason to remove stars is to "weigh" the gases. Beyond that I'd not bother as they (the images) are meaningless.

I do not know about starless but reducing them I find is useful. I took a look at both images, and as with mine, when I tried this, I found starless nebulas to look fake. For example. your 2 images, I found the one with stars to be better IMHO, it is space, we are imaging space, not water coloring.

Now, if you had reduced the number of stars, and reduced them around the nebula, it would be interesting to see that. I also feel when you remove all the stars, you are losing detail. For every star removed, something has to be put in its place, sometimes this seems to make the object washed out.

It is a very nice image.

Scott Badger:
Well, what I want to vote on, isn't one of the options.

So I'll go for:

D) Do whatever the hell you want and stop caring about what people think.
And it's my standard answer every time someone makes a topic about "what is correct", "what is right", "how should it look"

There is no right or wrong way to do any type of photography, not just astrophotography.
Once the data collection is complete, it's all up to you.. you can go for accuracy, you can go for art, you can go for creativity, it doesn't matter.

If you're not working at NASA or any other space agency, and as long as you're not making claims about something that isn't real (for example; creating fake colour comets and pretending they are real and sending them to news agencies to get featured) - you have no obligation to be scientifically accurate.. NASA isn't even always scientifically accurate, or we wouldn't be having false colour SHO images.

Yes, but.... I think most of us, most of the time, are striving towards some sort of accuracy. And whether that involves looking at other's images, including HST, or critiques from AP forum members, feedback is part of the process. I think where we really diverge, is the question of what accuracy means. Is it what the eye sees, what the camera sees, or what's really out there?....Of course, all three are just as accurate, or inaccurate, according to the intent of the imager. A multiverse of sorts....

Not advocating, just devilish.....

Cheers,
Scott

What is accurate, NASA themself say that it is Art, that the colors are not real, look at the new color pallet they have, that is almost translucent. When I started I wondered if the colors are correct. Now, I know they are all made up. Most of the time, I try to color the image based on what the color channels are.

Sometimes I will over exaggerate colors to show ridges better.

Sure, post all the starless images you want, but don't post them as separate images from the the original image, if it is from the same data it's a revision.
Also, while you are busy showing us your starless images remember that all your separate bicolors or narrow band colors from the same data are not considered separate images to be posted, this also basically applies to crops too.
One more thing, we are all here to learn and participate and grow as astro photographers, but just because you have learned an exciting new process doesn't mean it should be posted as a public image, especially when you have already shown us the original image. Use revision.

https://welcome.astrobin.com/features/image-revisions

scott

"You" used in general, not anyone personally

This is the first time I have ever seen a post about someone upset about image posting, and while I do understand why, in some cases, like this, you want to show 2 sides to the image. For me, even if it is the same data, it is 2 different processing techniques. I guess, without being combative, I was wondering why this is so upsetting? I have seen many peoples page, and I must say, it seems to be common place.

For me, revisions are more like sessions, if I did the image over 6 days, and processed each day, I should not post them as all new images. I should have one image, with 5 revisions.

I consider the question as quite useless, because it always has the same identical answer - as many of these wright/wrong questions and polls:

It is your data! You can do what ever you want to do with it. You are the only one who decides.

You have many different, wide ranging, opinions here. One group is the “as close as possible to reality hardliner” and on the other end you will find “all what is possible and nice” group.

Why is it so hard to accept this variety? Just enjoy what ever you like, and ignore the rest. Diversity also helps to identify what you like and what not. I have to admit I hate this narrow minded missionary attitude that some always want to “brute force convince” others what is right or wrong. That is always a decision of yourself! You should embrace and enjoy the variety of images in all aspects. This is a treasure. Consider how boring AB would be, when all images look the same 🫣

CS
Ruediger

Robert Winslow:
IMHO, it is space, we are imaging space, not water coloring.

haha

I like this, I can see what you mean too!

Ruediger:
I consider the question as quite useless

Yes, they're useless in the sense that there's no right or wrong answer to the outcome. But they're useful in the sense that they create an engaging discussion amongst fellow astrophotographers. I'm not expecting a definitive outcome, it's nice just to hear opposing opinions.

Ruediger:
I consider the question as quite useless

Yes, they're useless in the sense that there's no right or wrong answer to the outcome. But they're useful in the sense that they create an engaging discussion amongst fellow astrophotographers. I'm not expecting a definitive outcome, it's nice just to hear opposing opinions.

of course you may discuss it. But then the question should rather be: “Do you like ….”
But from my experience this always ends up in a holly crusade to “convince” others, or giving killer argument, or end up in generalizations, or tell others how wrong they are… this ends up very quickly in a clash of basic standpoints.
This is simply a matter of taste: you can tell what you like or not, but you should not argue about. This will fail.

Are starless images OK?