Moon in the Afternoon III (Please view LARGER!!!)

--Lannie

Absolutely amazing. Lovely details and the clarity. Its really very beautiful capture. Like it.
All the best to you. Warm Regards.

Thank you so much, Kaushik.

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

The 600mm F/4 EDIF is one of my favorite Nikkors for lunar shots.

Nice job with the shot.

Upon enlargement,  I noticed some background noise in the black areas.

Here is my rework of your original. I enhanced the contrast, sharpened the details and removed the noise present in the background.

I have been doing astronomical work and specialized imaging process for 23 years now. Prior to that, I did the same with film as the media.

Best Regards,  Mike

Hi Lannie,

I have attached the original size here.

Mike

Nice teaching tool, Mike.  It reminds me of the style of presentation found in astronomy books published before and during the fifties and sixties, when high contrast was often the style of lunar maps, with craters and other features labeled or coded with numbers or with lines extending from the features out into the margins.  After NASA, a more natural effect was more common.

Contrast and sharpening give the impression of higher resolution and more data, but, if anything, there is actually data loss in the sharpening artifacts that emerge from aggressive post-processing.

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

When I use the RAW data, there are no losses in the details. Actually, the results are better due to the fact that most observers do not see the finest details contained in the original  image.

Interesting that you mentioned NASA. I had done much work for several organizations that worked with NASA, studying lunar topography from Earth based telescopes.

At my own observatory I hold several high resolution imaging records for the finest lunar details ever recorded from Earth , for at 16" aperture telescope.

Now 16" is not large by observatory standards, but resolving features smaller the 0.3 miles in diameter at 240, 000 miles away is like seeing a dime at 3+ miles  away !

Best Regards,  Mike

Mike, you seem to be twisting some things around here.  You say, "When I use the RAW data, there are no losses in the details."

First, you were manipulating my photo, which was an uploaded JPEG.  There is no way that you are going to get the RAW file back from a JPEG file.

Second, lossless data (whether in RAW or TIFF or whatever) does not mean that you cannot have image degradation in the post-processing.  It is true that there is no data loss due to compression, but image degradation is clearly taking place with the over-sharpening.  The final result is a caricature of the original shot (which already had had some contrast and unsharp mask applied).

Third, the fact that over-sharpening appears to give more true data or more real resolution of actual data does not mean that it actually does.

Finally, you have a disconcerting tendency to cite credentials and experience in lieu of actual argumentation, typically at critical points in your argument.  It frankly reduces your credibility and vitiates what otherwise might seem to be a promising line of argumentation and introduction of evidence.

Here is one of your own where data loss is even more obvious from over-aggressive post-processing:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=13423452&size=lg

I am not talking about the donut effects of the mirror lens in the OOF focus area, but the over-sharpening itself, which is almost your trademark.

I realize that you like over-cooked photos, and that is your choice.  I do not, however, and it pains me to see you offer something that is simply your esthetic preference as an example of something that it is not: a better photo in terms of actual resolution or any other objective measure of image quality.

I have to keep coming back, however, to my third point above: "Third, the fact that over-sharpening appears to give more true data or more real resolution of actual data does not mean that it actually does."

The mere fact that you can fool the eye with sharpening and contrast does not mean that you are offering a true improvement or actual enhancement of the data.  "Contrast enhancement" does not mean that you have actually preserved the data, much less made it better.  Every sharpening or contrast manipulation involves some image degradation, even if it is not the usual data loss due to the manipulation of compressed or lossy files, or loss upon compression.

As I said above, the final result you have posted is a caricature of the original shot.  You may like it. I don't.  You may be able to convince a good bit of your public that it has the same or equal data-or even more or better data.  That does not mean that it does.  If anything, you have added data, but it is not data that comes from the image as taken by the camera.  It is false data added through post-processing giving the illusion of greater resolution.

Such techniques may yet have some heuristic and teaching value, but a bit more intellectual honesty would be appreciated.

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

I know that your JPEG is not like your RAW data. You must have misunderstood my comment. If I had the RAW data, it would appear much better than reworking a JPEG.

Now, as for the scientific imaging, no processing is used when I do work at the professional level. The raw numerical data is mathematically studied from the what was  exactly recorded.

I typically work in the 16  to 20 bit domain , not 8 bits as provided by JPEG.

Most people would not find binary data bit arrays too interesting to look at either !

Yes, everyone has their own likings for image content and the way it is presented.

However, I do not accept my credentials or experience being mentioned in such a negative connotation.

I would be pleased if you would furnish me an apology for that statement.

Best Regards,  Mike

Mike, no one has besmirched your credentials in the least, simply your habit of frequently dropping credentials in lieu of substantive explanations or logical argumentation.

I am afraid that my remarks stand as stated.

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

No harm done as far as I am concerned.

By the way I thought you might enjoy this lunar image taken with my Nikon D3 at a focal length of 2200 mm. This is a telescope that I designed and it is one of 50 at my private observatory facility.

Best Regards,  Mike

2200mm!  Wow, Mike, that is a magnification of about 44 power.

That kind of treatment could definitely have some teaching value.  Tycho, Copernicus, and Plato in partciular stand out among the myriad other craters.

--Lannie