Saturday, November 25, 2006

Mt. Etna rumbles

14 comments:

Mr roT said...

Interesting photo. Seems like it was done by that Reuters guy that juiced up the smoke pictures in Lebanon. These are more in line with what I am used to. Seems you have a reputable source, though, AI. At a university, after all, people are making an honest living.

Tecumseh said...

Are you bitching about the Space, Science, and Engineering Center at U. Wisc, JJ? What do you object to its picture of Mt Etna, again?

Mr roT said...

Who's bitching? Just seems the picture is doctored, no? Where's the 'again'?

Tecumseh said...

Doctored? I don't think so. Are you saying NASA is faking these pictures, or is it the University of Wisconsin?

Mr roT said...

I had found that page. They do say that the image is processed, of course. They are in the business of bringing out the content of the plume photographically, not giving what you would see out the shuttle's window.
I thinnk the shots I linked to above are probably closer to that window thing. But maybe not. Seems the cloud is so opaque that there'd be a million deaths!

Tecumseh said...

Yes -- it's called "image enhancement", or some such thing. Not to be confused with run-of-the-mill Reuters photoshopping.

At any rate, why did we get off-track on this? One should just admire (and/or shudder) at the sheer display of force (and strange beauty) of this natural occurence.

Mr roT said...

You accused me of bitching! I am cool with Nature's force as long as it ain't enhanced by Photoshop!
Agreed?

Tecumseh said...

Enhancing satellite images is not the same as photoshopping. Once we agree on that (if we do), it's all honky-dory.

Mr roT said...

How do you think they do it?

Tecumseh said...

They use different software, for starters.

Mr roT said...

Nope.

Mr roT said...

My colleague from work doubles at cfa Harvard and is juicing pictures all the time.

Mr roT said...

However...

Tecumseh said...

Well, it still requires a plug-in. OK, let's call it a draw.