# 26 May, 2017 12:24
|Fully agree with the last 2 posts! Always if I search for specific images many many doesn't have acquisition details. Absolutely worthless for me. At least it should be possible to filter out images without acquisition details from the search results. It would save me time|
# 26 May, 2017 13:04
|I agree that it is very helpful to see the acquisition details especially when people are using similar equipment, but also agree that this should remain optional. In terms of "pros" vs "amateurs" and indeed the use of professional data (processed by amateurs) provided from fabulously expensive equipment located in pristine environments, I believe there is some merit some form of categorisation. After all if you operate a 80mm scope out of a city garden you are always going struggle to produce a worthy image vs a 400mm scope operating out of New Mexico. Just a thought.|
# 26 May, 2017 13:57
My 2c worth?|
Compulsory data logging & acquisition details should be mandatory. Anyone who doesn't post their details is either lazy or possibly easily accused of cheating imo. (Ie: What are they hiding, did they actually take it?)
This is an amateur astrophotographers forum, we all learn from one another. If I'm researching a target I always checkout other interpretations and the exposure & equipment details first to gain insight into what might work with my gear.
I want to make the best possible images that I can, and this info is critical to planning- I'll happily go it alone on rare stuff, but to gain insight into others methods & thought processes is valuable.
Anyone that doesn't post these details is selfish or lazy imo.
No Info = no help.
Josh, as to IOTD, I am one if the reviewers. Not a judge or submitter. If an image is from DSW or The Liverpool telescope or Subaru etc, I'm unlikely to for it on principle. Imo it's not an amateur image, and best not to be considered for IOTD.
Doesnt mean I don't like it- heck some of these are incredible! But it's not in the spirit of the comp imo.
Finally, no IOTD = no incentive to post. What's the point, if not to better our imaging than to strive for recognition by one's peers?
If we do well then we deserve a pat on the back because this is a very difficult hobby. It's very satisfying to get a rare, great result and like oxygen it's something to keep us going on those nights when everything goes wrong!
# 26 May, 2017 14:24
|The idea of some kind of Code is good. We recently had an internal discussion with Salvatore what pictures are acceptable or not (the issue was with main few pictures of flying planes). Do we accept avionics pictures or not? Plane and the Moon is common picture here, but does the space object make it an astrophotography picture? How we can evaluate artistic pictures castles and the Moon or Sun, flowers and the Moon or Sun etc.? Only because it has a space object? Or we shall calculate the minimum percentage of the space object in the picture? Does photographical tripod picture is acceptable? What if the tripod has a camera pointing to the skies? What kind of space objects we accept? Do we accept ISS, satellites etc.? How we measure - by altitude? What is about bolides and meteorites burning in low atmosphere? Sorry to be sarcastic but some of these questions are really hard to answer. May be, we shall think on the Code or Rules determining general principles of picture acceptance, including minimal technical information on the shot (scope, mount, guider, camera, exposition, number of shots, cooling or not etc.)? Mostly the good pictures come with such details but a few - not. I lived almost 4 years in Chile and can give allegory: in Chile all population and foreigners MUST give their fingerprints to the government to be properly registered. All notarial transcanction = (contracts etc.) must be not only signed but has a fingerprint of the parties. You may argue that it is an inheritance of dictator Pinochet regime etc. Also true but the main reason - many people are illiterate|
# 26 May, 2017 23:06
I think it makes a lot of sense to note the acquisition details. By copying the acquisition details from older images, it is a simple and fast thing. I need only a few seconds. It should be possible to filter only images with acquisition details from the search results. It would save a lot of time. This is just my opinion. Thank you Salvatore for your commitment.
# 27 May, 2017 00:59
I think part of the reason people don't supply details is because it's not easy to do it. If I'm doing an LRGB image and I have to click "Advanced form", then for each additional filter click "Add more", then enter a lot of the same information.|
Most people tend to use the same bias and dark frames for extended periods because making masters is somewhat time consuming, and the masters usually last a while. I think most people would use the same binning (at least for a given filter), gain, temperature and exposure lengths so as to match their master calibration frames. All of this could be set up as account-based defaults, where for the most part, the use could then just enter the number of frames for each filter.
If you want people to do something, you need to make it easy for them to do it and/or incentivize them. Account-based defaults would go a long way to simplifying it, and some kind of gamification system could help with motivation.
# 27 May, 2017 09:55
Specifics about an image may not be available, can't be remembered, unrecorded. etc. Is that a reason not to post a good image?|
Some people put full acquisition information in the description. Does that count? (I never could figure out why someone would take the time to do it that way, but I guess they have their reasons).
Even when the fields are completed, I doubt that the information is 100% accurate. Is bad data better than no data?
I don't think trying to enforce filling in all the blank fields is reasonable.
# 29 May, 2017 17:32
Salvatore IoveneI agree with the user. Some minimum acquisition detail should be required. With Photoshop (and many other tools), it's very easy to "make" an image from many others. Some "proof of original acquisition" should be required, even if someone else acquired it for you to process.
# 29 May, 2017 22:48
|Once you call something a "Competition" you have automatically turned some people off and some people on. We are suppose to be all adults and take it for what it is worth. I try to learn as much as possible from each image. I really like looking at the IOTD and comparing them to my humble attempts. Obviously, if I see an image that is using top of the line equipment at a top of the line site I am NOT going to get all upset about it. What I try to do is improve my skills as much as possible with what I have at my disposal.|
# 29 May, 2017 22:49
|I'd settle for a simple system that labels thumbnails as with/without acquisition details. Doesn't have to be perfect, but just something that limits endless clicking on thumbnails, only to find absolutely no information.|
# 30 May, 2017 08:28
I am not in favour of dictats of this kind. First off what is important is the image. If a user chooses to share an image, then the proper response should be one of gratitude. We get the opportunity to see some fantastic (indeed mind blowing) astro images here. I don't feel that I have any right to know how these guys are producing these images. The fact that some 90% of folks do so is a credit to them and, again, deserves our gratitude.|
I'm afraid that I simply don't understand the sense of entitlement that some folks feel with regard to other people's work.
# 30 May, 2017 08:36
I'm not convinced that requiring people to put in acquisition details is being either a) non appreciative of their efforts or sharing or b) behaving like spoilt children.|
Personally I like to see people putting in acquisition details. I like to look at an image and also look at the details to get a feel for it. I think as well that for people using AB as a resource to help them acquire data it is a really useful tool to see how much data people used to get an image. Of course all of our conditions are different, so the details can't be taken as written in stone, but it's a nice indication to have….. in my opinion.
# 30 May, 2017 08:56
Sara WagerSorry Sara. I caught a button incorrectly and posted before I had finished - the perils of iPad I am afraid. You are one of the top imagers here and you post your details and I am very happy that you do so, because I steal ideas from you all the time. However, I would equally understand if you did not want to disclose your 'secret sauce'. Indeed, there may be good (possibly even commercial) reasons for you not to do so. But you are happy to share and I am thankful that you do so. Another imager might not want to share. He/she is surely fully entitled to come to that view. Why then should he/she be coerced into sharing. I would much rather see his/her image on here without the recipe than not see it at all.
It is the compulsion to which I object.
# 30 May, 2017 09:01
|Sure Steve I can see your point of view, but can't think that there's much 'secret sauce' in data capture…. Processing yes, but not x subs in y filter I think that we can all give the ingredients of the recipe so to speak without compromising any commercial or personal interests. After all many do say that probably as much as 80% of an image is in the processing.|
# 30 May, 2017 09:21
Sara, you have hit the nail on it's proverbial head!|
If I want to see pretty pictures I can google them orcsee them on Facebook.
However on Astrobin, I'm looking at images primarily as research to help me ID possible targets that might suit my gear & conditions. So I can create the best possible results.
Acquisition data is vital for me to guage the likely amount of subs required per filter on a given target.
Frankly, they are useless to me without this information.
My 2c worth
# 30 May, 2017 09:28
|I agree that the real artistry lies in the processing, Sara. I simply object to someone telling someone else how they must behave (unless that behaviour causes or could cause harm, of course).|
# 30 May, 2017 09:42
AndyAargh - I feel myself getting sucked into this thread… You describe exactly why it is useful to have details accompanying the images (be they pretty or otherwise). I prefer to see details. And, for what it is worth, I share my details. However, someone else might not want to do that and they may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to do that.
So, the question becomes, why should my desire to see their details trump their desire not to share? By what right does someone assume that their preference is superior to someone elses, and that that person should submit?
# 30 May, 2017 10:57
As someone who shares their details and who hopes it helps others I see no reason to enforce this - unless we want to be dictated to that is !|
From my perspective saying 10x600 seconds lum adds little more value than saying 1hr40min lum. But then I have OK knowledge of what scopes can achieve.
I can also state I very rarely (maybe 1 in 500) read this detail on the images! Instead, if i see something I like I work out what i need to do from experience not the data from others. I do know such details help others and I choose to include because I want to.
I will look for a user narrative more frequently than the equipment list.
If equipment details are enforced then some images (working on a joint image currently for example) could not be posted. I don't have all the details and am not that fussed about the brand of the filters in this scenario.
As pointed out some may not want to share the details. They have a right not to declare. I for one would not want to advertise my scopes and equipment if I still lived in a London (other high-density populated areas are available)! It would have been 'borrowed' soon enough. Just one example, another could be commercial, but in the end it is the users choice surely?
So to spin this round I think focussing on the positive is best. Most people do add these details even though it is not mandatory. So for those who like it there they have what they want more often than they don't. If not having the details detracts from the worthiness of the image then the user can simply choose not to like etc. You already have the power to express your preferences.
It's a matter of personal choice you have your views, others have theirs. It is a small community as it is making it smaller through exclusion strikes me as counter-productive.
Everything else aside the image is king. The extra data most users put in though should be welcomed but not expected.
Praise the effort the majority put in (the culture here promotes and I have watched many new users start without details then, over time they start to include), rather than dwelling on those that don't (if this even upsets you of course).
# 30 May, 2017 11:10
I for one really appreciate your efforts. Astrobin has been a go-to site for me to learn the craft of astrophotography.
Which brings us to the original question. Should the site enforce the image details? I would say that it should still be voluntary, but with reservations.
We are all scientists (amateur for my part) and we have the privilege of belonging to a community (Astrobin) that promotes and nurtures the field of astrophotography. As responsible members of this community, we should respect and help others grow in the field, much the same as your local astronomy club, where more experienced astronomers delight in helping newcomers discover the joys of star gazing.
So if being a responsible member of this community is to take a couple of minutes and filling out the details on my image posts, then that is exactly what I will do!
The benefits to other members are more than we can imagine. For instance, lets say I want to get into DSLR astrophotography. I can do searches on the images taken with these cameras and learn which ones are more popular, which model to get, what settings I need to try, exposures length and number, etc… This data mining capability is quite valuable. Same thing with a new scope I am considering. I can see what other people are imaging with the model I am considering, etc…
So help others by filling out your image details !
# 30 May, 2017 11:13
Francois TheriaultThis sums it up well - we should promote a co-operative culture rather than a restrictive set of rules. If other know it helps most will complete, if they can….
# 30 May, 2017 17:24
I appreciate an image more if I can see the acquisition details. I also always try to do my best to provide the details when I upload an image. However, I do not want to force people to accept my value. I am curious why some people do not want to provide the details, but I respect their choice no matter what the reasons are. I will continue to appreciate those who provide details, and I am happy to see if we can come up with a way to encourage more people to provide details. I just do not want to force it. That's my view of this.|
# 30 May, 2017 17:51
|There is a very simple solution to this. You don't have to force it. Just make it a requirement for IOTD selection.|
# 30 May, 2017 18:30
It isn't a question of rights. It's a question of what is going to benefit the community more, mandatory or non-mandatory image details? I would have been fine with acquisition details being optional when Astrobin was a free site but now that it is subscription-based I expect it to be more demanding by nature. A website like reddit.com/r/astrophotography requires acquisition details for ALL posts or your image may be removed. Reddit is a free website and their rules are more restrictive than Astrobin which is a paid website now. If I'm giving some of my hard-earned cash to AB I would expect something as simple as acquisition details to be mandatory. Including them takes a couple of seconds and goes a long way in helping other users to plan imaging sessions based on similar equipment.
# 30 May, 2017 18:54
tphelan88I don't follow. The guy who doesn't want to share is a paying customer too, is he not? In my view, 'communities' (of all sorts) work best when based on co-operation, not coercion.Steve MilneIt isn't a question of rights. It's a question of what is going to benefit the community more, mandatory or non-mandatory image details? I would have been fine with acquisition details being optional when Astrobin was a free site but now that it is subscription-based I expect it to be more demanding by nature. A website like reddit.com/r/astrophotography requires acquisition details for ALL posts or your image may be removed. Reddit is a free website and their rules are more restrictive than Astrobin which is a paid website now. If I'm giving some of my hard-earned cash to AB I would expect something as simple as acquisition details to be mandatory. Including them takes a couple of seconds and goes a long way in helping other users to plan imaging sessions based on similar equipment.
# 30 May, 2017 19:14
|My point is when a free website requires more from you to submit images than a paid website something is wrong. If people don't want to share details then they should not post to a subscription-based website, theyshould make their own private blog instead. If there's going to be costs associated with using Astrobin there should be added value over and above what we were getting when it was a free website. Otherwise the annual fee is a waste of money. Imgur and Flickr are free sites where you can get plenty of ooh and ahhs for your images sharing no acquisition details at all. Astrobin is supposed to be an educational resource for astrophotographers and not just a place to get patted on the back for your images.|
|You have no new notifications.|