0.00
#... |
|---|
Chris Sullivan: Maybe we should institute a new 'competition' Astrobin WOTD - Whinge Of The Day. We could award virtual badges, and maybe even have a Top Troll subcategory. The main problem, of course, would be in determining what constituted 'professional' as opposed to 'amateur' whinging. |
3.31
#... |
|---|
Steve Milne: I think it's clear that we need to break this down into at least five subcategories of whining. |
11.14
#... |
|---|
or written any of their code,I record mostly everything with my own written software (FAST) except for PHD2. Hey! I write my own code in Python for some minor image processing tasks and for accessing the VizieR database! Can I have a cookie too? 🍩 🍪 |
 #... |
|---|
or written any of their code,I record mostly everything with my own written software (FAST) except for PHD2. Sure...You are a fantastic imager, that qualifies you for what ever bonus you want... |
11.96
#... |
|---|
Steve Milne:If you didn't make some portion of your equipment it is pro. You just purchase everything set it up and go.Great point. And agreed - these 'backyard' folks do appear to show a lack of .... commitment, if you ask me... Just when I happy as Dave admit I a pro then Steve pour water on me! |
#... |
|---|
Die Launische Diva:or written any of their code,I record mostly everything with my own written software (FAST) except for PHD2.Do I deserve a bonus when evaluating my images lol ? Sure, I just pulled a fresh batch from the oven, chocolate chip or oatmeal raisin? |
3.82
#... |
|---|
Kevin Morefield: Amateur = not get payed If there is a professionell staff in the process who get payed it is not an amateur work anymore. It is nothing wrong, but this is the definition. As I wrote earlier I also use different resources in my pictures which is always indicated and I will not take offense if someone says this is kind of pro data. If this is the definition that is it. |
2.62
#... |
|---|
There are cca 30% of pro data in top pick (last 60 checked) which is in my estimation covers 60-80% of all submitted pro data. On the other hand amateur data represented in less then 1% (compared to all amateur submissions - estimate only) in top pick and I think the reason is not because there are no good amateur pics.Of course almost half of the top pick is pro data, this will be reflected on IOTD as well. Hi there I agree 100% with Xordi. As long as there is no solution where both sides are satisfied, the issue will come up again and again. I think whenever there's something to win (even if it's just a 24h spotlight here on AB), people will see it as a competition web, that's just the nature of it. It is true that first and foremost the hobby itself and the fun of it count, yet the IOTD is a kind of gold medal that fills every astrophotographer with pride. Even those who claim they do everything for themselves and the IOTD means nothing to them would be secretly happy when they get it. And here it counts for most HOW they have achieved this goal. If I win a mid-range race with a rented Bugatti Veyron, I shouldn't be surprised if there are other people who feel unfairly treated. And statements like "it's getting boring", "always the same" and "don't troll around here"; don't help either. Let's finally find a solution to solve this problem. I'm aware that you can't please everyone, but at least the majority of AB participants should be satisfied that's what we're paying for, among other things. And please, I'm not talking about needing 10 or more subcategories - 2 would be enough: amateur (own equipment) and professional (bought or downloaded) data. The grey area in which a user operates his own equipment in remote operation belongs in my opinion also in the category amateur. This would then result in 2 IOTDs and the topic would be finally settled. I think that's technically solvable. CS Gabriel |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
Kevin Morefield:Amateur = not get payed I’m not aware that anyone here is being paid for their IOTDs or TPs. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that if there are ‘professional staff in the process who get paid [then] it is not amateur work’. That would seem an unusual definition. Indeed, it would mean that those who buy their telescopes and software from retailers (rather than building it or writing it themselves) would be professional. Soon there ain’t gonna be anyone left......  |
8.04
#... |
|---|
Steve Milne: I hope that comment was tongue in cheek otherwise you are going to start a whole heap of replies from insulted backyard imagers. Carole |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
Carastro:Steve Milne:I hope that comment was tongue in cheek otherwise you are going to start a whole heap of replies from insulted backyard imagers. I assumed that my comment was obviously humorous in intention, but I’m happy to confirm if anyone thought otherwise. At least I didn’t accuse any backyarders of ‘cheating’... phew.... ;) |
10.06
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
This discussion obviously will never end this way. Why don't we make a survey about this point. Then it would be a decision by the most important group in this forum, the members. The survey question could be for example: Shall not selftaken (own remote observatory is selftaken) astrofotographies be able to get IOTD? Answer: yes or no By doing this, the discussion will end soon, because the democratic majority has decided. Any further argumentation of pros and cons and beeing bored or trying to calm down the situation will only keep this discussion alive. What do you think about that idea? |
|
3.82
#... |
|---|
Steve Milne: This is kind of reductio ad absurdum, but I understand you Steve, might be my definition is not fully correct. Anyway there should be an approach which is acceptable for most of the people, because this seems to be a sensitive topic. I really like Astrobin, checking the top pics here taken on different locations, with different equipments, but I don't like the direction that top picks will be a collection of a few remote observatories only soon. I think this doesn't reflect the reality and we loose diversity. I know this is not the case now, but month by month getting closer... |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
Christoph Lichtblau: The problems are two-fold. Firstly, there does not appear to be any agreement as to what constitutes ‘pro’ data. ‘Self-taken’ is not defined. Secondly, are we to call for a ‘vote’ every time someone expresses dissatisfaction with something? This thread, and the one before it, was initiated by someone feeling that there were too many ‘pro’ datasets earning IOTD. People demonstrated, with data, that this was not the case. We get people expressing unhappiness all the time (twice a week sometimes). Are we really going to have to go through the bother of having votes all the time? |
 #... |
|---|
Can we please now stop discussing this? We can go on ad-nauseam but, as mentioned:
|
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| Amen. |
|
10.06
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
@ Roberto " No matter how capable the processor is, I think that I am not bad at all at processing but my latest images taken under mean skies and a modest rig can't compete at all with expensive optics under dark skies." Roberto in your answer you can see the whole dilemma of misunderstanding in the discussion here. You are only speaking of "processor", but what about the "imager", who took the data by himself under various conditions with all the issues and troubles you have with it , outside in the cold over many nights trying and learning to handle his equipment. Then the result is exactely how you wrote, not comparable at all with the expensive optics under dark skies. This is what frustrates our members deeply and I can understand them. But we as jury provocate him in addition by choosing top pics and IOTDs, made only by processing professional not self taken data which clearly will bring up much better results. Means with only half the work, while sitting in the warm and completely ingnoring the part of imaging. AB credo is" for astrofotographers from astrophotographers" A processor is not not an astrophotographer. IOTD is clearly felt as an reward. So with choosing an IOTD which only was processing professional data, is giving an award to someone who only did the half job, and can be sure to have a uncompetable result. Exactely as you wrote. Seen as a cheater through the eyes of a real astrofotographer. I think these are the feelings of the " bundle" how you descriped them. I for my part do not want to see the best processed professional data on IOTD. I want to see the work of an astrophotographer who did the whole job. If I want to see professional images, the internet is full of it. |
|
10.06
#... |
|---|
| And that's why we have this discussion here. |
|
10.06
#... |
|---|
|
Two good points Roberto. To point no.1 : I only can speak for myself, not for other submitters or reviewers. To piont no. 2: ok let's see. |
|
3.31
#... |
|---|
Given 2 images of the same object, one exceptional but with few blood shed from the author since he/she lives under a very dark sky with a very good rig that doesn't fail as often as mine for instance ( smile ) and another less attractive, maybe noisy, less detailed but taken by the author literally spending 4 nights in a raw fighting with guiding, clouds and whatever, -40C, etc… I choose the first. Really? I guess that's why we keep coming back to this discussion then. I mean, I consider this subject totally beaten to death / sour grapes and I've already made a couple jokes about it above, but I'd definitely pick number 2. That's no knock on the last to IOTDs with professional data. They were both very interesting for different reasons and I'm glad they received the honor, but for me, it's far more interesting to see what amateurs can do with amateur equipment. I think this site would really become boring if it turned into a site primarily dedicated to showcasing Hubble and other professional data. You'd lose what makes Astrobin special. |
|
3.31
#... |
|---|
| Okay, I did misread that. Sorry about that. We keep conflating so many things in this discussion that I got confused. I'm not worried either, to be honest. |
|
3.31
#... |
|---|
But if we stop and think for a second, it's not a great deal if every now and then some outstanding pro data appear. I didn't know very much Alberto's processing until he has been featured IOTD few days ago. It has been a nice opportunity to know someone else. I agree completely. I feel that pro data definitely has a place here when it brings something unique to the table, but (this being a site for amateurs) I'm probably always going to prefer amateur data.  |
0.90
#... |
|---|
Chris Sullivan:But if we stop and think for a second, it's not a great deal if every now and then some outstanding pro data appear. I didn't know very much Alberto's processing until he has been featured IOTD few days ago. It has been a nice opportunity to know someone else.I agree completely. I feel that pro data definitely has a place here when it brings something unique to the table, but (this being a site for amateurs) I'm probably always going to prefer amateur data. That's why resources such as Astrobin are great. They support a wide range of images from many sources and we all have our preferences. My preference is that we continue to enable the diversity we enjoy and avoid exclusion. These new contests Salvatore has planned sound like they could be a bit of fun, bring it on. |
3.34
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Steve Milne: Good Morning! Not the slightest "problem" here, it is so easy. Data downloaded from a remote scope far away under the some of the worlds best sky or data from HST, Subaru or anything like that is "pro-data" and should be exluded from IOTD. As said, for those there is the APOD-site. So all those problems you are bringing up: "there is no definition of what is considered pro and what amateur" is not correct, it is very, very simple but I know you don't like that as all your images would be excluded from IOTD. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
Michael S.:Steve Milne:Good Morning! I suggest you re-read my post. At the very least, re-read the final word of the sentence you quote. |
