18.84
#...
·
 |
|---|
Ruediger:However, I have a problem with your example. Running 200m and claiming to have run 400m is simply a lie. Processing data from another source and clearly stating so is not. I*m also not happy with your distinction between image processing and AP. To me image processing is an integral part of AP. As a beginner I currently approach everything under the aspect of learning experience. When I'm out in the field I try to learn to handle and improve my data acquisition process with my own equipment and when I'm performing image processing - with own data or with data of others - I'm training my data processing muscles. It all serves the same purpose to learn and improve. Why put it in different categories? Agreed  CS Rüdiger |
7.53
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
So, having done both I think its a situational kind of thing. For starters, coming from the Great White North, a subscription to TelescopeLive is much cheaper than a plane ticket to Australia. Maybe this is a case of "the grass is greener on the other side" but you guys really have the better celestial pole in my opinion. Two satellite galaxies and the galactic core? Awesome! Secondly, no matter their bortle level, not everyone has the fortune of living in good conditions for personal imaging. This goes beyond just clouds in the sky. Job or school commitments, forest fire haze, extreme temperatures and weather, etc. I can't say I have been happy with the amount of time I have been able to scrap together to go outside and image myself. Although I was desperate enough to venture into -37c to take a picture of Orion. It's that statement alone that makes me agree with everyone who says that its way better to process your own data. There is a story behind it. You captured those photons with your own equipment that you set up, that you collimated, that you spent precious hours getting just right. You took the flats and you calibrated all the lights. There is also another element that is not often considered, which is the financial angle. I'm just gonna say it; anyone who can dump money into astro gear is in a good place financially. I've noticed a lot of people here are in their 30's or above, and either have (presumably) well paying jobs with a good work-life balance, or are comfortably enjoying their retirement kicking back enjoying the greatest hobby around. Even if you cite cost efficiency, a lot of people don't have the cash sitting around for the initial investment. Its like telling people to go buy an electric car to save on gas. Sure, in the long term it works out just fine, but most people can't front that initial cost of 50k for an electric car to begin with. Maybe their financial situation only allows them to eat the cost of 200 dollars a month for gas instead of 800 dollars a month paying off an EV lease. Again, I totally agree its nice to capture your own stuff and its one of the prime appeals for myself. Using datasets kinda kills the enthusiasm a bit. However, its a great way to practice processing and/or process targets that you can't see yourself. In the rough patches where you can't get outside yourself, those datasets can really keep you in the game. They have for me. So in my opinion, TelescopeLive at $20/mo or whatever it is can be a viable alternative for a lot of people. Is it still astrophotography at that point? Well I suppose that's subjective. I don't disparage those who use datasets, especially since I am one of those people, and I think its wrong to do so. I don't think it makes someone a lesser member in the hobby. They just choose to participate in a specific aspect of it. Are those who focus only on moon pictures, or solar pictures, or planetary pictures lesser members of this hobby than the high and mighty who image DSOs? Oh yeah, and if you want a review on TelescopeLive, its pretty decent. I think the best value to be found are in the observation bundles. Just be warned that not all bundles are created equal. Some have really good subs, others not so much. Inspect each frame before you buy any of the bundles and before you stack em. You will have to weed out subs with poor tracking, clouds, focus issues, or all of the above. |
|
18.84
#...
·
|
|---|
They just choose to participate in a specific aspect of it. Are those who focus only on moon pictures, or solar pictures, or planetary pictures lesser members of this hobby than the high and mighty who image DSOs? Hi SemiPro, I totally agree to your arguments. Also I stated there are plenty of reasonable and legitimate reasons to use these service providers. No doubt about that. But exactly as you point out: It is another category - or let's call it "subcategory" of AP. My point is, you cannot not club them together. Neither more, or less. CS Rüdiger |
|
7.53
#...
·
|
|---|
Ruediger:They just choose to participate in a specific aspect of it. Are those who focus only on moon pictures, or solar pictures, or planetary pictures lesser members of this hobby than the high and mighty who image DSOs? I think subcategory is the best way to look at it. Some people dabble in all subcategories, some only other - and for many reasons. Given what those reasons can be I just don't put much stock in judging people too harshly in how they approach AP. Unless they are ask for it via (constructive) criticism! |
|
18.84
#...
·
|
|---|
I think subcategory is the best way to look at it. Some people dabble in all subcategories, some only other - and for many reasons. Given what those reasons can be I just don't put much stock in judging people too harshly in how they approach AP. Unless they are ask for it via (constructive) criticism! Well for me it is actually not a matter of judging. I would never dare to judge about someone in this way. I only have a personal conflict: If I hit the like button, I want to like all aspects. I feel it is unfair to like two almost identical images, but one images acquired by the user, the other bought data and only processed it. I know the pain and difficulties the photographer was undergoing to get the data. I would feel better if I could give 2 likes to image A and one like to image B. To bring it to the point: It feels unfair for me. |
11.24
#...
·
·
8
likes
|
|---|
|
I could not agree more with what Ruediger and others have said and I am sorry that the sarcasm intended in my first reply to the original OP might not have been obvious enough, so I will take it one step further. There is no question that computer processing is an integral part of the AP process, and we all agree it is no fun to suffer through bad weather unable to image. However, it is a whole other thing to sit in your mom's basement and buy image sets to process and then post here as if you are an astro photoprapher who owns gear goes outside to set up gear, focuses, PA's and points gear and programs the gear to take his or her own pictures. It gets particularly insulting to those of us who practice the entire process when we see the award inequity between dark site images, especially data sets, and backyard images right here in the Astrobin awards system. scott |
|
18.84
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
It gets particularly insulting to those of us who practice the entire process when we see the award inequity between dark site images, especially data sets, and backyard images right here in the Astrobin awards system. You have made a very good and valid point here. That is what I have tried to express with "unfair". CS Rüdiger |
|
7.53
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Ruediger:I think subcategory is the best way to look at it. Some people dabble in all subcategories, some only other - and for many reasons. Given what those reasons can be I just don't put much stock in judging people too harshly in how they approach AP. Unless they are ask for it via (constructive) criticism! That's a good point. When I run across an image from a remote site I tend to hold it to a much higher standard than say an image captured at home. There are are a lot of pictures that objectively might look bad to the causal viewer, but when you know the story behind the picture and what went into it, they become really awesome. There are just some photos out there that only someone with knowledge of the hobby can appreciate, if that makes sense. I could not agree more with what Ruediger and others have said and I am sorry that the sarcasm intended in my first reply to the original OP might not have been obvious enough, so I will take it one step further. I do feel the award part. A lot of people say we shouldn't be doing any of this for anyone but ourselves but it is nice to be recognized by your peers when you do something pretty neat and to an extent having datasets take Top Pics and IOTDs can be disheartening. Though I do feel like that is just a small part of a much bigger issue with awards around here. |
|
11.24
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
I think the source information should be part of the title of every image on the home page. That way, for example, the viewer would immediately be able to see the difference between a data set image and a similar image taken by someone in the field. It gets ridiculous when you see the same telescope live image over and over again but at least we would be able to "like" images more accurately, and appreciate or completely ignore what ever images we chose. It won't stop people from posting the same image from the same data in 6 different colors or cropping 2 year old images and posting them as new, but it might help some of us avoid rewarding them for it. scott |
13.14
#...
·
·
10
likes
|
|---|
The summary and undisputed consensus seems to be that the overall experience of collecting own data, experiencing the night sky in the process and processing the own data is "the real thing". I wholeheartedly agree. Uwe recently did a quick analysis of Top Picks. "...nominated for TP consideration were 13 images, 12 of them remotely obtained, 1 pure backyard image. Or I checked the most of the February TPs: ~20% backyard images. Do I have to say more to convince people that some changes to this reward system need to take place?" I do get a thrill out of a nod for consideration. My 8 year old grandson gets even more exited especially with t Top Pick. But I really don't have much of a chance anymore. I agree with Rüdiger there should be separate categories. 12 out of 13 clearly shows that. -john |
7.75
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Photographer Ansel Adams pointed out "The photographic negative is like a composer's score and the print is a performance". In AP in my opinion this is the same with imaging data and its processing. For exactly this reason I don`'t find it ridiculous to see the same data processed over and over again - just as I don't complain about the 1000th image of Heart & Soul or California Nebula from a backyard (actually working myself on these targets right now ...). Instead I look at the images wether I can take anything away for my own purposes. I'm quite generous with giving likes and I give them for various reasons. Why not give them for good processing skills? Maybe the person never left mom's basement but he invested 10+ hours in processing instead of only a quick and dirty job. And it most likely took him several years to get to the level of processing skills. Why not appreciate it? "Fairness" is a difficult criterion for giving likes in particular if you try to link fairness to effort put into the image. I have to carry 15+ kg (30+ lbs) of equipment onto the top of a hill for 20 minutes to collect my own data and I still didn't reach a level I'm happy enough to publish here due to some instabilities in my mobile setup. Do I expect to get an apod for my first own image because it would be "fair" to appreciate my efforts? I live where I live and I have to accept the limitations. Life is not fair and never was. Sympathies and congratulations to anyone with a bortle 2 sky and a fully automated backyard observatory. I will always appreciate their great photos here and they will continue to get my likes while I will continue to climb my hill night after night without the faintest hope that my bortle 5-6 sky will allow me to get even close. I think we're degressing a bit and a lot of valid points have been made for using data of remote sites mainly - overcoming personal limitations (money, time, physical limitations, ...) - getting access to objects otherwise out of reach (other hemisphere, extreme focal length requirements, light polution, weather/seeing conditions, ...) Have fun and clear skies Wolfgang |
|
7.53
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
John FavalessaThe summary and undisputed consensus seems to be that the overall experience of collecting own data, experiencing the night sky in the process and processing the own data is "the real thing". I wholeheartedly agree. Really gonna go on the off-topic train here BUT, I did some digging. The following is for January 1 2021 to January 1 2022. I am an Arts major, so take it with a grain of salt. Step one is to get your picture into the awards system:  The percentages represent success rates. So, if you image from your backyard your odds are much much lower than data coming from remote sources, be it personal or commercial. Of course this accounts for ALL images uploaded last year. So, yeah. It goes without saying the quality is not even across the board. Once you are in the awards process, things tend to even out, but still skew towards remote data. Again, the percentages represent the amount of pictures that made it to the next level.   Suppose you even the playing field a bit for the backyard warriors by making the minimum integration time 15 hours. The amount that make it into the award system is up to 16.9% from 4.48%. Suffice to say, I don't think the idea that the amateur hosting folks have an advantage is unfounded. In order to start approaching the success rate of the amateur hosting folks you have to start putting in some serious hours as opposed to say just downloading some files. Now.... Of course there are many, many, MANY factors at play here but I think that goes without saying. |
11.57
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Suppose you even the playing field a bit for the backyard warriors by making the minimum integration time 15 hours. The amount that make it into the award system is up to 16.9% from 4.48%. Suffice to say, I don't think the idea that the amateur hosting folks have an advantage is unfounded. In order to start approaching the success rate of the amateur hosting folks you have to start putting in some serious hours as opposed to say just downloading some files. Now.... Of course there are many, many, MANY factors at play here but I think that goes without saying. Nice analyses. What I sometimes find is that quite a few people mark amateur hosting facility as "own remote observatory." I can't be certain how many do this. But if this can caught my attention, the fraction must not be small. So the actual fractions can be substantially different from what you calculated. A general question here: do judges/referees see such info? Or it is hidden from them to prevent biases? |
|
7.53
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang:Suppose you even the playing field a bit for the backyard warriors by making the minimum integration time 15 hours. The amount that make it into the award system is up to 16.9% from 4.48%. Suffice to say, I don't think the idea that the amateur hosting folks have an advantage is unfounded. In order to start approaching the success rate of the amateur hosting folks you have to start putting in some serious hours as opposed to say just downloading some files. Now.... Of course there are many, many, MANY factors at play here but I think that goes without saying. I totally forgot about how Astrobin switched to an opt-in system on December 8 for awards. From that point on there is no way for us to see how many images were submitted to the award system since we don't know who has opted in or out. However, 53% of the awarded images came from backyards or traveler rigs. 45% of images that made it to Top Pick and IOTD where from the backyard/travel folks, and 63% of all IOTDs since the change have come from backyard/travel folks. So, at least if you get into the award system you have a good chance. It would be nice to see the numbers of initial rejects from each category though, as I was able to do in my initial post. |
|
18.84
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Suppose you even the playing field a bit for the backyard warriors by making the minimum integration time 15 hours. The amount that make it into the award system is up to 16.9% from 4.48%. Suffice to say, I don't think the idea that the amateur hosting folks have an advantage is unfounded. In order to start approaching the success rate of the amateur hosting folks you have to start putting in some serious hours as opposed to say just downloading some files. Now.... Of course there are many, many, MANY factors at play here but I think that goes without saying. Thanks SemiPro for this deep insight. Actually the given point above is also a root cause for the increasing use of remote sites / rented scopes. Most of the APs here life in areas, where getting data over 3 or more nights is simply not possible due to climate. Hence, to ever have the chance to participate in the award system, and enjoy it, they (have to) go for remote services. This is a self accelerating effect making it harder and harder for the original Backyards. This is an arms race which leads to a dead end. Maybe it would be fair to do it like in golf sports: Using a handicap score equalizing these draw backs in order get more fair? This could reduce a lot of frustration as already @John Favalessa pointed out. |
7.22
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
| Reading the comments above is/has been quite amusing. I can't believe people get worked up because of worthless (meaning there is no money involved) system of virtual prizes. I don't submit so I'm out but I'd venture to suggest to replace the current system with one which would select the winning contribution totally at random from the submitted entries (only for fee-paying members as you got to make contribution to AB to be in). So you may get your blurry Whirlpool picture as the image of the day or maybe your cat beside the astro gear. That would be very amusing. And scary in a way. |
|
7.75
#...
·
|
|---|
.... Actually the given point above is also a root cause for the increasing use of remote sites / rented scopes. ... I find this claim really far fetched in particular for rented scopes which are way more expensive than own equipment. I find it way more plausible to assume an increasing interest in astronomy (good) in combination with an increasing percentage of people who are subject to the limitations mentioned above (bad). Just as Andrea except for one weak moment at the start of my astrobin membership I chose not to particpate in the IOTD submissions. It's a "nice to have" but never was part of my motivation. I use IOTDs extensively when studying the targets I'm aiming at myself. In that process I always find sufficient examples of users who worked with their own data and with equipment in my ballpark. Anyway, we already agreed to disagree so I leave it at that. I believe the pros and cons of remote sites have been discussed. Have fun and clear skies Wolfgang |
|
13.14
#...
·
·
8
likes
|
|---|
|
Sadly, I have chosen to not participate in submissions anymore, but only because I do not see the award system as being fair enough. I have gotten a few Top Picks and was thrilled to have an image recognized by this experience community. My grandson, 8, also was thrilled, actually more than me! When I post a new image, he asks me everyday if it got nominated. I did have a goal to someday get an IOTD. I've given up on that. We all can agree that: 1. capturing your own image data is difficult but rewarding 2. processing image data is difficult but rewarding 3. remote scopes give generally better image data For me, to keep it simple, I see two reasonable categories for awards: 1. capturing and processing your own data 2. processing remote data If this was implemented, I'd try that IOTD goal again 😀 |
1.20
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
| I just wanted to say: astrophotography is a hobby. And hobbies never have to pay off, they are allowed to be as expensive as you can afford and I love to spend money on my gear. Others carry their money to the clubs and bars, so even my wive is OK with me spending money on my hobbies. I do not need calculations or statistics for cost and use, I know it is expensive and I am OK with it because it gives me a lot of magic moments. |
7.61
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Interesting discussion. Lotta' gray areas..... For myself, I 'acquired' data for a couple targets through iTelescope while on interminable back-order for my first scope and jonesing to move on from fixed tripod data of M31 and the Milky Way..... At the time, I was personally very happy with what I got and quick to show it off, even on AB--while careful to note the source of the data, of course...  But once I had my own scope, and without really thinking about it, I no longer paid much attention to the iTelescope images and was even quicker to show off what I was getting myself, despite being nothing like the same quality. As others have said, it has its place, but its not the same.From the other side, and taken to the extreme, when scrolling through AB the Hubble data images catch my eye for sure, but are of little practical interest. Regarding rewards and value, unless it's a lottery, I have to disagree with the notion that an award is only, or even mostly, worth it's monetary value. Whether it's the Nobel Prize, Astrobin IOTD, or the Corbet's Couloir crown, the real 'value' of most awards is prestige and recognition. The cash plays little part in the race and at best, a marginal return for the investment. In principle, I agree with the idea of separate categories for data acquired on rented gear and data acquired on your own, but the details quickly get messy. By 'your own', I think it should count whether standing outside with the scope or sitting on a couch in the living room, even if the living room is in a different country, so long as you're responsible for setup and operation. But, what if you set up a remote rig with a couple others, and each specializing in some part? And what if you set up a remote rig and hire someone local to take care of any operational issues that come up, plus periodic collimations, PA checks, etc.? And in the end, if my $3,000 Celestron rig is measured against another's images off a $30,000, or $300,000, setup, it matters little who is responsible for the equipment. An alternative would be awards according to equipment classes, but since both mount and scope would need to be taken into account, if not camera as well, not sure how feasible that would be. Getting back to the OP's original query, I found scheduling with iTelescope to be a challenge with everyone, myself included, double and triple booking time to make up for lost slots due to weather and equipment issues. More so, though, I found the purchase credit up-front subscription model that requires a monthly purchase whether or not you've used up the previous month's credit to to not work well unless you're in it long term. I had unused credit at the end and when I re-subscribed 6 months later to use it up, weather issues prevented me from getting much of anything other than an even larger left over credit that now I'll probably never use. Cheers, Scott |
2.71
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
John Favalessa: That's a shame John. It costs nothing to let your image be submitted and you're no worse off if you don't get a nomination. As a recent 2022 Submitter for IOTD I'm obviously bound by certain rules but I'm always on the look out for stand out images that were taken and captured in the backyard. There are many and a lot to go through Vs the number of remotely captured / sourced images... but some of those remotely captured / sourced images are also superb and deserve promotion (within the current rule set). I'm glad I get to look through Astrobin follower images and generally (but not always!) ignore any remotely captured stuff there. I enjoy looking at every level of captured image from a backyard - knowing how rewarding it is myself. You capture and process your own data, you're an astro photographer - it never gets old enjoying the consistent, memorable moments and joys of this. I personally don't believe I would get any satisfaction only processing remote data. Lee |
|
7.75
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
... and even with the very same rig you have people living in or having access to better bortle zones and different amounts of time to collect and process data ... In the end you get so many categories that everyone gets his prize. Ok, I'm out of here. Have fun and clear skies Wolfgang |
|
13.14
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Lee: Lee, your words are encouraging. you are right. Thanks for setting me straight. Last night was clear for the first time in a while. Setting up in the dusk was sweet, then darkness with good seeing even from bortle 7, I'm sitting in my light pollution baffle for an hour looking up. it is renewing and even spiritual for me. Gosh I need this avocation! -john |
4.82
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Hi Rob. A good way to check out all the hosting sites right here on Astrobin is to search the Top Pick awards section. From that section you will be amazed at how many Top Pick images you can see on the main page every day that are from hosting sites and even more specifically sites that just sell data sets. Wow, so images of the day are from people who purchased data sets? Hardly right MHO. This is a hobby, and one should take all that this hobby brings. I wish I had known that this site allows professional datasets. Makes me a sad person to know that I will never be as good as the purchased data sets. I did go to the site, signed up for the free month, and downloaded one of the bundles. Was surprised to find a line going across the photo thus making the images worthless. I love setting up, I love the first few minutes of night, and I love knowing that anything that I capture is something that I spent the time and effort to get. I do wish astrobin would not allow professional images. |
|
11.01
#...
·
|
|---|
|
For me, I just strive to get an image from my back yard that could even be considered as an IOTD. I have a modest setup and as such would not expect to get there yet. I'm not religious about HOW the image was aquired, but just how good the image is at the end of the day. Let's just see really beautiful astro images on IOTD. For most of us, this is a really great hobby and one where we all want to get better at each day; and most of us do. P.S. Why have none of mine been on IOTD yet? Just kidding. |
