 #... |
|---|
|
here we go again. Please tell me what is wrong with this image. I reprocessed the data--details on the image page. All the good images I see on Astrobin get many, many likes. Most of the time they are worthy--but sometimes not. I think this image is an excellent image. Does it have issues? of course--show me an image that doesn't. But all in all--I don't think it has a major flaw. It is not Deep Sky West, Hubble, Liverpool Telescope, DSS2, or I-telescope data. It was not captured in Namibia, Cile, The canary Island, Antarctica, Israel, or Tuvalu. It does not have a popular name or face associated with it. Please look at it objectively and tell me why you don't like it. I may be deluding myself, which would be a good thing to know. If I have to re-calibrate my "Good Image " standard, so be it....but I can't do that on my own. My opinion is if certain people posted this image it would have over 300 likes. But my gauge might be broken....I don't think so...then again a crazy person thinks they are sane....so I need assistance with this. I don't know why I picked this image....I have plenty of others that I could say the same about. As a side note....I have no interest in debating the meaning or value of "likes" or TPs. If the image is worthy of a "like" the question is why doesn't it have more. If it is not worthy of a "like"...why not? If everyone has a different opinion about its merit or the meaning of likes, then there should be a lot of different answers to the question. For some, leaving Astrobin in a huff because they do not get enough TPs or IOTD pays off. That is something I would never do, because its MY page--its where I have my images. How could I leave? Making it private....well, that's another matter. CS Rodd https://cdn.astrobin.com/thumbs/TjBeaFA3EB0K_16536x16536_QJSIG5bY.jpg |
#... |
|---|
|
I see the link I posted does not allow full resolution, which is needed because this image holds up to full resolution. If I get any responses I will upload a new link cs rodd |
11.07
#... |
|---|
| Rodd, I think this is one of the best I’ve seen. Couldn’t suggest an improvement. |
#... |
|---|
Kevin Morefield:thanks Kevin. |
 #... |
|---|
|
Well, I do not have much of an artistic or nitpicking eye for detail. But I don’t see anything wrong with that image. I think it looks really great. I beat myself up for not being able to produce images as good as you do, and I have what I consider to be a much better camera - when it is working. So I am sure that the way I am taking Astrophotos is the first part of learning this art. The second part is in being able to post process it. Now I know the main reason why you were getting such really good images because you are using filters. I am not using filters. So I really cannot expect to get images looking as good as you get no matter how much better my camera might be. I think I am more interested in the finer detail, like splitting an atom.  |
#... |
|---|
John R Carter, Sr.:What canera do you use? No filters? is it a OSC? |
8.87
#... |
|---|
| Rodd, I would like to answer your question. And let's get a little more phsychological, because your assumption that perfect pics get the most likes is wrong. Your point of frustration comes from a lack of interactivity to the rest of the members here. Your pictures will be liked, when you like the pictures of the others and are in contact with them. In your account you can see that you are following just a handful of members and the same way around. That means, that your great pics stay unvisible when you bring them in here, because the most likes you get from people you are following and of course your followers. To like a picture you see, means not only that you think that this pic is good. It also means that you respect the astrofotographer for his whole work of astrofotography you can see on his account. No interactivity means no likes. These golden rules a valid for our lifes in general. I wrote you more than one time, that you are a great astrofotographer. You answered more than one time, that you are missing something. Are you obviously missing a positive feedback for your work, which you will not get because you are not giving it to enough others. To require more likes with that thread here is not proposeful. My advise as a friend is to overthink and change your behavior in that point. And I like your pics very much Rodd... |
#... |
|---|
What canera do you use? No filters? is it a OSC? QHY128C - OSC. I also have a Mallicam Universe, an ATIK 490exc, an Atik Infinity, an Atik 460exc, and a modified/cooled Cannon 6D with drop-in filter holder. The three Atiks are for the C8 when I take it to star parties, e.g., GCSP. The QHY and Mallincam are for the C14. The Canon is for a Stellarvue SVQ100. Both the C8 and C14 are equipped with HyperStar as an option. The C14 is permanently mounted in a 10x12 roll-off roof and mounted on a Losmandy Titan 50. The SVQ100 is piggyback on the C14. |
#... |
|---|
Christoph Lichtblau:Something is wrong with the page--it says I only have 55 pics--but I have over 100....Hmm. I have 149 followers. Most of my likes do not come from my followers I dont think--most come from being on the page after someone likes them and others see them. In some respects you have made it worse ;) ! If I have 149 followers and get only 35 likes....my image MUST be REALLY poor! . All kidding aside...I see your point, but that is not the whole picture (no pun intended). I have increased my followees and my interaction quite a bit in the last few months. Some of your images are seen 1300 times--but you only have 500+ followers. So there is more to it than whom one followes and who follows who. Nothing says more about ones image than the anonomous "like". For that like is based on one thing only....image quality (without getting into why folks "like" an image), not friendship or politeness etc. I know I am being a bit crazy in this. But people that do not get TPs or IOTD get angry if they feel their image deserved one. Since there are only 3 TPs and 1 IOTD, I don't really think about them. But likes, they are different. Comments are even better--but I understand the time involved and how many times can one say great image, anyway (many dozen for some peoples images--plus they get likes!).I need some clear sky so i can forget about all this for a while. I appreciate your support Chris......I aspire to your ability |
#... |
|---|
John R Carter, Sr.:. How do you use a mono camera without filters? Which cemera were you refering to when you said you thought it superior?What canera do you use? No filters? is it a OSC?QHY128C - OSC. I also have a Mallicam Universe, an ATIK 490exc, an Atik Infinity, an Atik 460exc, and a modified/cooled Cannon 6D with drop-in filter holder. The three Atiks are for the C8 when I take it to star parties, e.g., GCSP. The QHY and Mallincam are for the C14. The Canon is for a Stellarvue SVQ100. Both the C8 and C14 are equipped with HyperStar as an option. The C14 is permanently mounted in a 10x12 roll-off roof and mounted on a Losmandy Titan 50. The SVQ100 is piggyback on the C14. |
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos: None of my cameras are mono. All OSC. I was referring to the QHY128C as being superior to the ASI1600MM - but that is just my opinion. However, the QHY as an OSC reduces it to being less effective than the ASI mono using color filters (24 megapixels divided by 3 is 8 megapixels per color, compared to the 16 megapixels per color of the ASI using filters). I really don't want to mess with using a filter wheel and spending hours taking images of the same thing over several nights. I'm really enjoying the great images you get with your equipment. Makes me envious, and now I feel like I spent too much money on what I have. Lots of people using the ASI1600, both mono and color, with great results. |
#... |
|---|
John R Carter, Sr.:Yeah but the uncoated sensor plate really is a negative. But, do not troubl yourself about gear---satisfaction is not possible. There is always a faster car in the race, or a stronger person in the gym, and the telescope over there is always more attractive than the one you are focusing. But, the grass is not greener. A friend of mine has purchased 2 extremely expensive scopes only to return them becuase the stars were poor, or for some unforeen reason. But I am sort of the same as you--I have 4 scopes, 2 cameras, 4 planetary /lunar cams and I am still not satisfied. I will say that the overall time is not that much more with a mono camera. I do not know first hand, but I have been told that what you save in acquisition, you lose in processing with a OSC. Does it take longer to process? I dont know. But I am glad I made the decision to go mono. I do use OSC for planetsRodd Dryfoos:None of my cameras are mono. All OSC. I was referring to the QHY128C as being superior to the ASI1600MM - but that is just my opinion. However, the QHY as an OSC reduces it to being less effective than the ASI mono using color filters (24 megapixels divided by 3 is 8 megapixels per color, compared to the 16 megapixels per color of the ASI using filters). I really don't want to mess with using a filter wheel and spending hours taking images of the same thing over several nights. I'm really enjoying the great images you get with your equipment. Makes me envious, and now I feel like I spent too much money on what I have. |
|
11.07
#... |
|---|
John R Carter, Sr.: John, actually, it takes more nights with an OSC to achieve the same SNR as with a mono camera. Primarily because with every OSC exposure you block 2/3s of the light, while with the Mono Luminance exposures you block none. |
#... |
|---|
Kevin Morefield: Yep. I totally agree. I am still the kind of photographer that will take as few shots as possible to get a decent image in one night. I'd rather take many short exposures at high gain than fewer long exposures at low gain, realizing that the longer exposure grabs more detail along with more satellites and planes. |
#... |
|---|
John R Carter, Sr.:but long exposures are riskier. If you lose a 30 min sub. You lose it all. If you shoot 2 min subs you might lose one or two, but probably not 15. That being said, one of my images had 1400 subs. The only thing I will add to that is......never again! For the asi 1600 and toa 130native 300 sec subs work well. I can deal with 60-100 subs per channel. Though if you dither, the shorter subs you take the more time you lose to the dither delay and recovery. All in all, I think I prefer CCD to CMOS, even though 30 min subs are a bit of a pain in my fickle skies.Kevin Morefield:Yep. I totally agree. I am still the kind of photographer that will take as few shots as possible to get a decent image in one night. I'd rather take many short exposures at high gain than fewer long exposures at low gain, realizing that the longer exposure grabs more detail along with more satellites and planes. |
0.90
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Rodd, It really is a solid image, you've done well! As for what can be improved, a few things. Keep in mind, I am not a judge, submitter, or reviewer, etc., so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I've included some images though to help demonstrate what I am talking about. Additionally, this is all based on your supplied image which was compressed at least a little by being a jpg and uploaded online. 1. In some areas, I find the red oversaturated to the point of losing detail. Here is a comparison with a different image of the same with lower resolution and then scaled up to match your original image. As you can see, there are some more details within the "tendrils" that get lost due to the saturation.  2. There are fainter structures within your image that could be brought out more effectively. See below, with both images being your own, however, the one on the right I edited to enhance the faint Ha structure, the left one with the green O is the original version. This was admittedly a bit more difficult and dirtier than it could have been due to editing a jpg, but consider it more a proof of concept.  3. You have a strange noise pattern throughout the image, almost like a painting. Personally, I would rather see a little grain rather than larger blotches of color, but I can see this being more a preference. I attached a "grainy" noise, and your image (marked with R's). The left is the original, the right has been exaggerated to show the noise pattern.  4. Lastly, I think your image could be slightly brighter and a bit more dynamic. Below is the image slightly brightened (right), with the original marked with the green O (left).  I don't think any of these could have or should have disqualified your image as a TP as none of them are fatal flaws in the image. I actually made an effort to go back and look at other TPs around the time of this, are there are multiple other images of this same target that were picked along with some other great images. It is possible that committee picked the other two and didn't want to have three so close to each other of the same target. The other images are admittedly just as nice as your own. It's possible some of the pickers (not sure which stage picks first honestly) decided the others had marginally less errors or an overall greater appeal. Regardless of the reason, hopefully the above you take constructively. It really is a great image, with some very minor flaws (every image has them). If you asked us to nit pick your image, we would be doing you a disservice to find anything. That's how we grow. Hope this helped, Connor |
#... |
|---|
Connor Matherne:Thanks Conner. All good points. I will have to go back and reprocess to see if I can correct some of these things. Some are byproducts of the data and can’t really be fixed— just compensated for. Poor skies are no fun. I appreciate your input Rodd |
#... |
|---|
Connor Matherne: Conner, really good analysis. That will even help me with my images. |
#... |
|---|
Christoph's analysis explanes precisely how things are going on here.I left for this reason astrobin few months ago because this situation was bothering me a lot. I went back in the game a couple of weeks ago because I realised that like/iotd/tp are not my main goal anymore.thanks Roberto. I used a small amount of nc. Almost none. But a little goes a long way. Color management for me with bicolored images is one of my week points. I will have another go. No noise control is hard in my sky. But I will see what I can do |
#... |
|---|
| Not sure how. Can’t upload to the forum |
 #... |
|---|
Christoph Lichtblau: Hallo Christoph, Wholeheartedly agreed, absolutely realistic! Cheers Robert |
