![]() ![]() But then, any narrowband image is 'not how stars really look' either, so I guess I'm all about pretty pictures rather than accurate ones - I'm not conducting research here. The fact that I like them is probably caused by years of looking at David Malin's old photos from the AAT and other similar images. Note the eight points this is caused by the 18-70mm DX having 8 aperture blades. Not that I think images *without them look bad at all, just that I don't see diffraction spike as a bad thing.īut I also know that it's a technical aberration caused by spider vanes - it's not how stars really look in real life. English: Diffraction spikes (sunstars) at f/8. ![]() I think, for want of a better word, it makes the stars look somewhat majestic. This spike isn’t present with refractors as it doesn’t have a secondary mirror. You could probably get creative and hide it in post, but that would be about it. As far as removing them, there isn’t a real good way to do it, because it is baked into every image as a result of the telescope design. Most of them but not all are contrived in photoshop. Diffraction spikes are a result of the front spider which holds the secondary mirror. It kind of surprises me because I personally really like them. This is not a natural appearance of the star in real life, but instead a photographic effect caused by how light bends or diffracts around an object or in this case the support beams in your secondary mirror in reflecting telescopes. I get asked about the diffraction spikes in some of my images. I've heard a few people express a preference for images without diffraction spikes, and who therefore tend to lean towards refractors and SCT's for imaging tools. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |