Difference between revisions of "Photometry (doing it)"
From CoolWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchm |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you've done photometry before and expect to do it the same way on Spitzer or Herschel images, BE CAREFUL because IT WILL NOT WORK. The units of Spitzer/Herschel images can be tricky. | ||
=Most coherent, developed, tested materials= | =Most coherent, developed, tested materials= | ||
Revision as of 18:51, 31 July 2020
If you've done photometry before and expect to do it the same way on Spitzer or Herschel images, BE CAREFUL because IT WILL NOT WORK. The units of Spitzer/Herschel images can be tricky.
Most coherent, developed, tested materials
- Aperture photometry using APT - Dr. Luisa Rebull, 2011
Somewhat less coherent (or less standalone) materials
- (this is cross-posted in 'concept' and 'skill' for Photometry) In 2019, an alumni team (Olivia Kuper and Tom Rutherford) were trying to carry our original photometry on Herschel images further. We had sources clumped close together on the sky, and even though aperture photometry was ok for our original project, they were trying to learn how to do PSF photometry in Python. They were struggling with vast array of free parameters. I wrote this Photometry Scaffolding document in an effort to help them understand, in words, what the free parameters were and why they mattered. This may or may not be useful for anyone else, but as I put a lot of time into it, I thought I'd post it here. -- Dr. Luisa Rebull, 2019
Other sources of interest
- The IRAF manuals are old but still very, very valid. If you can pay attention to the concepts and ignore the IRAF-specific instructions, you can learn an awful lot from these manuals. Oldies but goodies.
- https://www.aavso.org/
