# 30 May, 2017 19:27
And, despite the fact that I do post details (though I doubt that they are much use to anyone), I have a different opinion.|
I really struggle to understand what the problem is. According to an earlier post, 90% of folks do post details. You get what you want 90% of the time. Why do you demand 100% uniformity? That sounds very grey and horrible to me. I much prefer diversity.
# 30 May, 2017 19:28
Wes ChiltonI agree completely with Wes. Astrophotography is one of the most challenging hobbies out there. If newcomers are capable of handling the difficulties of imaging, I would expect them to find acquisition details to be an easy final step. From the perspective of a newcomer myself, I've added details to all of my images, and found no trouble or challenge in doing so.
# 30 May, 2017 19:46
I don't know where 90% comes from but from my experience using the search function that's not accurate. I'd say about half of the images have details which makes using the search function very archaic. I image using an 80mm refractor so if I do a search for NGC 6946 with max aperture 82mm, apochromatic, and DSLR I'll get images that look like they were shot using a 10" Dall-Kirkham in my search results. That's because there are no details submitted with the image and the only data the bot can pull is the object name.
Also, I like diversity too but the diversity should be found in the images, not the site guidelines. Everybody should have to play by the same rules and there's really no excuse not too. Like Wes Chilton and Cody Knight said…adding acquisition details is by far the easiest and quickest part of any astro image.
# 30 May, 2017 19:55
I've been skimming this topic since replies starting coming in recently. Perhaps a good compromise would be to entice users to provide the details, but not requiring it. In the past, I've seen some suggest that it could be done by only allowing images with a certain amount of details provided to win IOTD, but I think that's unfair.|
I thought about it for a few minutes over lunch, and perhaps a better way to do it is to have image details contribute a small, but not insignificant amount to a user's AstroBin index.
# 30 May, 2017 20:05
Ethan & George ChappelDon't get me wrong, I prefer to see details but I dislike the idea of coercion. Encouragement, however, I am all in favour of (and this is likely to be more productive than accusing people of being "lazy" or "cheats", as someone did a few posts back, unfortunately).
Your suggestion is easily the best that I have seen posted on this forum and may be a very elegant solution to what is (in my view) a trivial issue.
# 30 May, 2017 21:16
|Astrophotography is a complicated hobby (and a money-sucking black hole too ) so c'mon, it takes only a couple of minutes to share your imaging info, and can be helpful for others! For example, I may want to know what is achievable with a specific setup. While I am happy when a fellow imager share his/her acquisition details (especially optics and sensor used), I don't believe this should be mandatory.|
# 31 May, 2017 04:19
|At least the date imaged should be required for image of the day consideration.|
# 31 May, 2017 13:05
in my opinion is important to have details about the setup used.
I noticed, however, that the same item is called with a lot of different ways. Is possible to find a system to have one item with one name?
Ciao a tutti,
io ritengo che inserire i dettagli delle riprese sia una cosa molto importante, sia del setup utilizzato e sia i dati di ripresa. Quindi sono favorevole a rendere alcuni campi "obbligatori" per poter pubblicare le immagini.
Inoltre sarebbe cosa buona poter fare una ricerca in base alla strumentazione utilizzata, ma questo in parte è già possibile farlo, però avviene che spesso lo stesso strumento ha "decine" di nomi o personalizzazioni diverse, ci si trova magari ad avere pochissimi risultati dalla ricerca quando, invece, ne sono presenti decine.
# 31 May, 2017 18:59
I use Astrobin mostly for my image repository so I can access and copy it into various forums from one place and for the information it provides when I upload. I typically fill in the data all the time so I can remember what I did, but I don't like the idea of it being mandatory unless it's just a minimal dataset or, even better, if there was a default option that didn't require any user input beyond an initial input.|
I would like to see a default setup where I change the data only if something is different. So if I typically use a scope, mount, guiders and a certain camera at a particular location, that is selectable as a default setup rather than having to enter it in all the time. I think you'd be more likely to collect the information you want.
That information can be collected when a user signs up so it could be displayed by default. It would work similar to the current function of duplicating from a prior image, which is mostly how I enter my data, except that it's automatically duplicated. There would be a risk of getting wrong information tied to an image but you could mitigate it by having a confirmation box to remind the user that the default is being used or allow them to choose a new setup. You could even have pre-configured and user-named defaults that the user can easily choose from in a pull-down list. That way it gets populated with one click.
My exposure times, stacks and filters change and sometimes my cameras are different but my scope, mount, guider, and location all tend to be the same.
As for IOTD, it doesn't really bother me the way it is and I don't understand the all the grief.
# 31 May, 2017 19:57
But what is the date imaged? I'm not tryiing to be funny - this is something I have wrestled with. Folks with permanent setups will often:
I just took a quick look at a recent target I did. Data was captured between 29 January and 16 February 2017 over 7 different nights. I used to put in each and every one of those dates separately. However, it was somewhat of a pain to do this, and I found it very easy to make errors. So these days, I just stick down the date of final data capture. ( I did once get someone asking, how I could have acquired all of the data in one night.)
I'd rather spend my time imaging and processing. I don't regard myself as some sort of scientist - I am doing this primarily for fun.
# 31 May, 2017 20:39
tphelan88I think the real problem is the search function itself. It shouldn't return a "null" result as a hit when you've specified a parameter. If it could give you what you were asking for specifically, it wouldn't be a problem if someone didn't include data with their image because their image wouldn't be in the search result.
I encounter a similar problem with the search in regards to guide scopes and cameras vs imaging scopes and cameras. I use what many consider as guide cameras for my main camera. So when I search for images with my camera, I get results where the guide camera matches mine, which is as equally useless as no image information.
If you could get an accurate search result, the requirement for data from every user disappears because you're satisfied with your search result, since you don't get useless hits, and the user who chose not to enter data is also satisfied.
# 31 May, 2017 20:55
|I wonder if a 'Only-Search-Amongst-Images-With Acquisition-Details' option would help.|
# 31 May, 2017 21:08
The first thing we need to consider is practicality. Making rules that are impossible to comply with is travesty. If you make a rule, it should to be a rule that can be complied with. Here are more reasons why a person might not have the acquisition information to put into a form:|
1. When using another person's data such information may not be available.
2. As integration times increase the number of sessions required increases. Putting in information from several sessions over several years is much too hard.
3. Some people are doing composites of data from 10 or more sources, it is impossible to enter so much data or to display it in a useful manner, even when one possesses such data.
4. For photos from travel, one could easily have photos from over a 100 sites. Filling in site information for each picture and trying manage such a list is unwieldy.
5. Not every photo has EXIF. For example, photos made on film and scanned for uploading.
6. Some data manipulation methods make acquisition information irrelevant. I use one shot color and regularly do color separation and combine data from several different sessions. I also make complicated synthetic layers with pixel math from several different images.
7. Some equipment doesn't get used enough to make it worth while to maintain in a list. I have over 10 cameras, and more than 30 lenses and telescopes that I have used for astro photography. Like most human activities the distribution of use follows a power law, about 80% of the work is done by 20% of the equipment. This means there is a large number of one offs. It is impossible to remember what combination was used for every photo.
# 31 May, 2017 21:14
|I would still like details to be required for looking at all images whether they be in the search function or the Big Wall. What I don't understand is why people don't want to share acquisition details. It's the simplest part of acquiring/processing the image and it helps everyone understand the hobby better.|
# 31 May, 2017 21:15
Great points, Gilbert.|
Another thing worth noting is that if you see an image that you like and it has no data, then there is nothing to stop you PM'ing the user and asking them about their image. They might give you better hints and tips than you would get from the impersonal details alone. And who knows, the contact could blossom into friendship, a relationship, marriage even………
I apologise - I am not taking this important issue nearly serious enough.
# 31 May, 2017 21:26
Steve MilneCan you really be friends with someone who doesn't fill out their acquisition details?
# 31 May, 2017 21:37
I'd certainly struggle to be friends with someone who allowed themselves to get worked up about something as daft as this ….
# 01 Jun, 2017 01:44
Robert JohnsonThere is a function that allows you to copy the data from any of your previous images. I think this is what you asked for. It doesn't just give you one default setup. In some sense, all your existing images can act as the "default."
# 01 Jun, 2017 04:00
It drives me crazy to see a good image, look it up, and find no data whatsoever about it. Personally, I'd like to see a subtle indicator on every thumbnail that indicates whether or not acquisition data is included. PI indicates linear data with a green line below the identifier tab. Something similar would be a nice way to show when an image includes basic acquisition data (say at least telescope, camera, and exposure time.)|
# 01 Jun, 2017 14:49
|one more thought, is not the acquisition data needed to build and improve the advanced search.|
# 01 Jun, 2017 15:58
I support this statement. If I want to look at unstructured data, I could use google as well. This is also true for pretty pictures. Not sharing acquisition details on a site like astrobin may be considered uncourteous.
# 01 Jun, 2017 16:47
Whereas demanding them, isn't?
# 01 Jun, 2017 16:56
|Steve, you have made your point of view very clear in a few posts in this thread. Why do I have the impression, that you have difficulties in accepting different views?|
# 01 Jun, 2017 17:41
Sorry Fritz - am I supposed to stop posting now, then? Folks who don't want to post their details will have many, perfectly valid, reasons for making this decision. Some of these have already been pointed out, and I will not repeat them. I think it is, at best, impolite to impugn their motives. So far in this thread, those people have been accused of 'laziness' and 'cheating' (this last charge is, without good evidence, particulalrly outrageous). And now you are accusing them of being discourteous.|
I post my details. My defending folks who don't wish to do so is, it seems to me, an excellent example of 'accepting different views'. It is your side of this debate that is exhibiting intolerance and has to keep resorting to ad-hominem attacks - as you have just demonstrated.
# 01 Jun, 2017 18:20
Steve, this is offensive and goes too far. I will stop posting at this point as i feel this is getting waaaay off topic.
|You have no new notifications.|