Brian Puhl:
Bill McLaughlin:
Star spikes can also be added using a Photoshop plugin called "Star Spikes Pro". I have it, although don't use it much. I will say it offers a lot of control and works very well and can make some images have a bit more impact. As with the strings method, you should always disclose it's use, of course. The only possible exception is when it is used only to clean up existing star spikes.
This plugin needs to die... lol
Many people would say the same about anything that is "unscientific" (whatever that is, and there is no clear definition). We heard the same thing about BlurX and yet it yields more true to life (as defined by comparison to professional high res images) results than the older so-called "scientific" deconvolution.
The bottom line is that esthetic imaging is, by any reasonable definition,
not science. As long as one
discloses any
significant modification to the image, then I cannot see how it is a problem.
It is up to the imager as to what is "significant" but for me and for star spikes, "significant" is putting them in where they were not originally present or making them easily noticeable as different than they were natively.
But then one could also argue that removing star spikes entirely is actually what should be done - they themselves are merely an artifact of telescope construction and not really there in any real sense whatever!
It is all about integrity and disclosure and standards differ.
