Michelle Stone (michellestone@No-Spam) said:
>Most of the interesting objects worth shooting require a shorter focal
>length to get the whole object in the field of view and get enough space
>around the object to make a satisfying picture. If you are willing to
>combine your images or use a large format CCD, then this requirement can
>be thrown out the window. Ray is an artist and will spend several nights
>to acquire enough data to make a great combined shot.
I do agree, especially about Ray, and others like Crisp. They push the art
forward through their enthusiasm, technical expertise and
experimentation. But other than such things as documenting variable star
magnitudes, or supernovae hunting, much of the objects folks image are old
news - unless they do the sort of things that Ray and Crisp do - push it -
work it - apply the artist's brush and make it "theirs"....
Some scoff at "changing" what the camera sees through software
manipulation, but to me , it is just artists and their tools. Stitching
mosaics together, combining filters, using new equipment, these are the
things that set the artists apart from folks with Polaroid cameras.
I am a big fan of what our local imagers do. I can't wait to see what Ray
does with his big scope - it is no different from knowing that an artist is
at work, and his creation is something we will all enjoy.
As for the technical side of imaging, I'm glad they enjoy it so much. An
art instructor I had back in college once told me the joy is in "the
process" ... and that's what I think the imagers enjoy so much. Those of
use who do not image just get to enjoy the "results" ... like folks going
to an art gallery or museum.
Mark