IOTD Anything goes · Rodd Dryfoos · ... · 196 · 4061 · 2

RAD
...
What is it with IOTD being given so frequently to Hubble data images?  I have seen 2 recently.  I feel any is too many.  Are there no decent images posted from folks who painstakingly spend weeks capturing and processing THEIR OWN data?  NASA does not need the recognition.  I think it is an insult to the people posting their own images.

And if you think I am talking about myself, I formally renounce all future potential for being chosen for an IOTD....its not like I am giving away anything.

Rodd
Like
carastro 8.04
...
·  1 like
It should be called Image Processing of the Day if it's not their own data.  Should have it's own category, but don't want to go down that route again.

Carole
Like
RAD
...
I agree.  But isn't that how we end up in places we do not want to be?  If the premise is, not to want to say anything or "go down that route", we end up in a place we do not want to be--much like the current political setting.
Like
Allinthehead 0.90
...
I'm glad that this image was chosen as i wouldn't have seen it otherwise and it's very much worth a look. I don't care what the source is. It is after all an image sharing website. Try not to take it so seriously.
Like
matherneconnor 0.90
...
Richard Sweeney:
I'm glad that this image was chosen as i wouldn't have seen it otherwise and it's very much worth a look. I don't care what the source is. It is after all an image sharing website. Try not to take it so seriously.


Agreed on both accounts. I think it is a fantastic image, one of the best Hubble processes I have seen (that I hadn't seen until it was selected). Additionally, a lot of things on this website should be taken nowhere near as seriously as they are. I for one am looking forward to having the same conversation again for the 1000th time as everyone talks in circles.

Connor
Edited ...
Like
RAD
...
Richard Sweeney:
I'm glad that this image was chosen as i wouldn't have seen it otherwise and it's very much worth a look. I don't care what the source is. It is after all an image sharing website. Try not to take it so seriously.
Its an image sharing website for peoples images.  If you want to see Hubbell images--go to the NASA website.  But its not posting the image that is the problem--I like to see them to.  But some of the people on here do care about things like "likes", IOTD and TPs.  If they were not important, they would not exist., and there would be no reason to congratulate someone that got one.
Like
RAD
...
Connor Matherne:
Richard Sweeney:
I'm glad that this image was chosen as i wouldn't have seen it otherwise and it's very much worth a look. I don't care what the source is. It is after all an image sharing website. Try not to take it so seriously.
Agreed on both accounts. I think it is a fantastic image, one of the best Hubble processes I have seen (that I hadn't seen until it was selected). Additionally, a lot of things on this website should be taken nowhere near as seriously as they are. I for one am looking forward to having the same conversation again for the 1000th time as everyone talks in circles.

Connor
No circle mate.  I will say the exact same thing if another HST image gets IOTD.  Circle means change--ending up where one starts.  I am a point--no movement at all.

Besides--I do not really wish to discuss it--that was not my reason for posting.  Its a complaint, pure and simple.  I think its wrong and there is not much more to say about it.
Like
Christophorus 8.87
...
The credo of astrobin is clearly to be a platform for astrofotographers not for astrofotoprocessors. I am the same opion like Rodd and Carole .Even it is abeautiful pic, I see it as an affrond against areal astrofotographer who takes the pics by himself over houres and nights. Same with the buyed data from chile scope. And I take this very seriously.
Like
Allinthehead 0.90
...
Christoph Lichtblau:
And I take this very seriously.


Maybe you shouldn't take it so seriously, it's just a hobby.
Every year a new panel of submitters, reviewers and judges are appointed. These groups (our peers) select the images and this image was chosen.
Edited ...
Like
HH_Astro 0.90
...
In my oppinion, Hubble data is far more difficult to process than my own data. And to get such unusual color as this one must be worth something.
Like
RAD
...
·  1 like
Richard Sweeney:
These groups (our peers) select the images and this image was chosen.
Yes..that is what we find to be egregious.  And really, if someone spends untold hours collecting data through bitter cold conditions, losing extended hours of sleep, spending a ridiculous amount of money on gear, struggling through steep and long learning curves to process, then spends almost an equal amount of time processing images, sometimes having to wait until the next year to collect additional data, and then tells me he/she does not take it seriously, I will not believe it.  Folks go through all of this, and more, because we take it seriously.  I imagine that is why people use water marks....because they do not want others to take credit for their image......because they take it seriously.

As hobbies go, this is about as serious as it gets.
Like
RAD
...
Hunter Harling:
In my opinion, Hubble data is far more difficult to process than my own data. And to get such unusual color as this one must be worth something.
I disagree...I find Hubble and Liverpool Telescope are hard to get, that's why I can't be bothered.  But once I have it, its easier to process than mine.  From the little data I have processed from these sources, (1 image)  it seems that there are no gradients, calibration issues, LP or other things that plague my own data sets.

But difficulty is not really the issue.  Even if it is harder, the images, IMO should not be judged against images captured and processed by individuals with their own equipment.
Like
Allinthehead 0.90
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
As hobbies go, this is about as serious as it gets.


Fair enough, although i do this because i enjoy the process and i enjoy looking at nice images, regardless of the source. I don't think i would've noticed the hubble image if it hadn't been IOTD.
Instead of finding fault in the way IOTD are selected why not volunteer to be a judge, submitter or reviewer when the chance arises?
Like
silkpericles 0.00
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
Hunter Harling:
In my opinion, Hubble data is far more difficult to process than my own data. And to get such unusual color as this one must be worth something.
I disagree...I find Hubble and Liverpool Telescope are hard to get, that's why I can't be bothered.  But once I have it, its easier to process than mine.  From the little data I have processed from these sources, (1 image)  it seems that there are no gradients, calibration issues, LP or other things that plague my own data sets.But difficulty is not really the issue.  Even if it is harder, the images, IMO should not be judged against images captured and processed by individuals with their own equipment.


Hello everyone
It is interesting and it seems to me that all the comments are totally respectable, I am glad that you have the weather and the time to spend so many hours capturing our precious photons, it is true that the images of Hubble have an advantage over the images that we can acquire as fans , but we all have access to that data, and I have never had any problem accessing it, it is more you can download the data that I download if you click on the link below the image, and we can always create our own version of the same image , as you know it is almost impossible for it to be identical, although I understand that this does not have the same value, it is true that knowing how to handle them the data is magnificent and of an incredible quality, but it must also be borne in mind that many fans of variants, they may not have the facility to have the necessary climate, time or money, and I believe that if they have the option to continue practicing an essential part of the astrophotography with the Hubble data, why not? And if the revealed image is worth it, why won't it be recognized?

I have been practicing this hobby for more than twelve years, I have been an active member of the astronomy association of my city for many years, right now it is physically impossible for me to go out for outreach activities or go out into the mountains to photograph with my team, so As I get the images with a private remote telescope and another commercial one, my images have no value, give me any equipment and I will photograph with it without problems, but first of all give me time, I do not mind sleeping little or being cold, I have spent nights photographing below zero with a trigger in hand, but it is clear that if the weather does not accompany, as it happens now in my region, where winters have gone from being cold and dry to being totally wet, and if I have to choose between my son and stop go out with the telescope, I am clear that I am going to choose, spend time with my son and for the moment until I can, obtain images remotely, and I think that does not detract Value to the images, that you do not like an image is respectable, but I think that the decision of those in charge of selecting the images of the day should not be questioned, after all this is a hobby, where we share interpretations .

A greeting.

Alberto.
Like
Snjór 11.96
...
Alberto Pisabarro:
Rodd Dryfoos:
Hunter Harling:
In my opinion, Hubble data is far more difficult to process than my own data. And to get such unusual color as this one must be worth something.
I disagree...I find Hubble and Liverpool Telescope are hard to get, that's why I can't be bothered.  But once I have it, its easier to process than mine.  From the little data I have processed from these sources, (1 image)  it seems that there are no gradients, calibration issues, LP or other things that plague my own data sets.But difficulty is not really the issue.  Even if it is harder, the images, IMO should not be judged against images captured and processed by individuals with their own equipment.
Hello everyone
It is interesting and it seems to me that all the comments are totally respectable, I am glad that you have the weather and the time to spend so many hours capturing our precious photons, it is true that the images of Hubble have an advantage over the images that we can acquire as fans....

Lovely image Alberto, just keep on as you are doing, I will keep enjoying your images!

Best wishes,
Sigga
Like
HegAstro 11.67
...
Why should any image that hasn’t been acquired by the processor themselves be considered for a recognition? I could similarly say that data acquired by remote observatories should not be considered. Hubble is, after all, a type of remote observatory. I do agree that greater weight should be given to the acquisition process which requires years and thousands of dollars to properly master.
Like
RAD
...
Alberto Pisabarro:
Rodd Dryfoos:
Hunter Harling:
In my opinion, Hubble data is far more difficult to process than my own data. And to get such unusual color as this one must be worth something.
I disagree...I find Hubble and Liverpool Telescope are hard to get, that's why I can't be bothered.  But once I have it, its easier to process than mine.  From the little data I have processed from these sources, (1 image)  it seems that there are no gradients, calibration issues, LP or other things that plague my own data sets.But difficulty is not really the issue.  Even if it is harder, the images, IMO should not be judged against images captured and processed by individuals with their own equipment.
Hello everyone
It is interesting and it seems to me that all the comments are totally respectable, I am glad that you have the weather and the time to spend so many hours capturing our precious photons, it is true that the images of Hubble have an advantage over the images that we can acquire as fans , but we all have access to that data, and I have never had any problem accessing it, it is more you can download the data that I download if you click on the link below the image, and we can always create our own version of the same image , as you know it is almost impossible for it to be identical, although I understand that this does not have the same value, it is true that knowing how to handle them the data is magnificent and of an incredible quality, but it must also be borne in mind that many fans of variants, they may not have the facility to have the necessary climate, time or money, and I believe that if they have the option to continue practicing an essential part of the astrophotography with the Hubble data, why not? And if the revealed image is worth it, why won't it be recognized?

I have been practicing this hobby for more than twelve years, I have been an active member of the astronomy association of my city for many years, right now it is physically impossible for me to go out for outreach activities or go out into the mountains to photograph with my team, so As I get the images with a private remote telescope and another commercial one, my images have no value, give me any equipment and I will photograph with it without problems, but first of all give me time, I do not mind sleeping little or being cold, I have spent nights photographing below zero with a trigger in hand, but it is clear that if the weather does not accompany, as it happens now in my region, where winters have gone from being cold and dry to being totally wet, and if I have to choose between my son and stop go out with the telescope, I am clear that I am going to choose, spend time with my son and for the moment until I can, obtain images remotely, and I think that does not detract Value to the images, that you do not like an image is respectable, but I think that the decision of those in charge of selecting the images of the day should not be questioned, after all this is a hobby, where we share interpretations .

A greeting.

Alberto.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to formulate such a well thought out and respectful message.  I never said that I did not like the image, or that people should not process Hubble data (I wish I could do more).  At issue is whether an image processed with Hubble data should be awarded the IOTD on this forum if it is judged against images created with amateur data.  I do not think it should--it is not appropriate IMO.  APOD--definitely, but not Astrobin.  I know there were many great images posted over the course of the same few days--or whatever time period from which he IOTD images are chosen, that the image in question was taken from (not really sure I specified an image actually--I am talking about a concept, not a particular image).  So the idea that not everyone has the time, or the gear, or the clear skies, or the darkness, is not relevant in this case.  Enough did....and usually do (I wanted to sways but that is a dangerous word).

I do believe that there should be image classes and each class (deep sky, solar, planetary, ultra wide field etc) be judged against images of the same class.  After all, there is no reliable way to compare a  lunar crater with a comet--or galaxy, or a solar spicule with a nebula.  To do so is to remove all objectivity in the judging process.  There needs to be objectivity if the award is to have any meaning.  The award must be predicated, at least to some degree, on agreed upon standards--or it is merely a statement of what the judge likes.  A judge may like poodles the most but till vote for a beagle as best dog in the show.  I think this recommendation has been made before.  Too much work?  Bah.  How many images are posted in a day?  whatever that number is--cut it in half as that would probably be about the percentage that could be eliminated immediately.  I have no idea how many images are posted in a 24 hour period.  I would need to know that number.
Like
Bobinius 9.01
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
What is it with IOTD being given so frequently to Hubble data images?  I have seen 2 recently.  I feel any is too many.  Are there no decent images posted from folks who painstakingly spend weeks capturing and processing THEIR OWN data?  NASA does not need the recognition.  I think it is an insult to the people posting their own images.And if you think I am talking about myself, I formally renounce all future potential for being chosen for an IOTD....its not like I am giving away anything.

Rodd


Hi Rodd,

I don't think it's being given "so frequently" (when was the other one?) My reaction was a surprise when I saw a Hubble image getting IOTD. I like processing Hubble images from time to time as you can see and I take great pains imaging from my backyard too in a Bortle 8 zone. I don't see it as something that's mutually exclusive. And there is merit in producing a beautiful and detailed Hubble image, it is not just a histogram stretch. Sometimes the original is not that good.  And Alberto really managed to do something great since the original Hubble image is already great. I understand the feeling of not being able to match Hubble data (no one can) but the goal is to present beautiful astrophotographical images on this site. And I think that the simplest criterion has to be the aesthetic one finally, all other things cannot be equal in our case. Sky quality, material, scope, mount, quality filters, make a major impact on the final image and we cannot just multiply the competing categories so that everyone feels fairly treated. Not everyone has the same conditions to start with, that's why I think the focus should be on the aesthetics.

Clear skies,

Bogdan
Like
RAD
...
Why should any image that hasn’t been acquired by the processor themselves be considered for a recognition? I could similarly say that data acquired by remote observatories should not be considered. Hubble is, after all, a type of remote observatory. I do agree that greater weight should be given to the acquisition process which requires years and thousands of dollars to properly master.QUOTEQUOTE SELECTED
There is a difference between setting up your own equipment at a remote site and imaging remotely, than paying a professional company to provide you with data from equipment you just select out of a menu and pay for data--or down load data from the best optical telescope in the solar system after it has been calibrated.  Again, neither of these things is bad.  If it wasn't so expensive to buy data I am sure I would do a lot of it because the data is so good.  But I would hope my image would be judged against another image processed with data from the same source--or source type.
Like
Snjór 11.96
...
Well said Bogdan!
Like
RAD
...
Bogdan Borz:
Rodd Dryfoos:
What is it with IOTD being given so frequently to Hubble data images?  I have seen 2 recently.  I feel any is too many.  Are there no decent images posted from folks who painstakingly spend weeks capturing and processing THEIR OWN data?  NASA does not need the recognition.  I think it is an insult to the people posting their own images.And if you think I am talking about myself, I formally renounce all future potential for being chosen for an IOTD....its not like I am giving away anything.Rodd


Hi Rodd,

I don't think it's being given "so frequently" (when was the other one?) My reaction was a surprise when I saw a Hubble image getting IOTD. I like processing Hubble images from time to time as you can see and I take great pains imaging from my backyard too in a Bortle 8 zone. I don't see it as something that's mutually exclusive. And there is merit in producing a beautiful and detailed Hubble image, it is not just a histogram stretch. Sometimes the original is not that good.  And Alberto really managed to do something great since the original Hubble image is already great. I understand the feeling of not being able to match Hubble data (no one can) but the goal is to present beautiful astrophotographical images on this site. And I think that the simplest criterion has to be the aesthetic one finally, all other things cannot be equal in our case. Sky quality, material, scope, mount, quality filters, make a major impact on the final image and we cannot just multiply the competing categories so that everyone feels fairly treated. Not everyone has the same conditions to start with, that's why I think the focus should be on the aesthetics.

Clear skies,

Bogdan
  The other one might have been a Livderppol telescope and it might have been a TP--can't recall.  To be frank, and this is completely beside the point as it is not at issue, I was not that impressed with the image....When I am blown away by HST images I know it.  I was not.  But, as I said, beside the point.  Someone must agree with me to some degree if what you say is true, or there would be more HST images with IOTD....in fact most.  The fact that there isn't speaks volumes.  I just do not think it right.  I am sure there were very nice images posted from people that captured their own data.  Give it an APPOD or AAPOD2 or have it blessed by NASA.  By all mean post on Astrobin and get 1,000,000 likes.  But there is no way I will agree that it is appropriate for an HST image to get IOTD.  Some agree, some don't.  None of us will change our minds.  So lets all agree to end this thread and get back to posting and admiring images.
Rodd
Like
HegAstro 11.67
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
But I would hope my image would be judged against another image processed with data from the same source–or source type.

I agree completely.
Like
RAD
...
I must take back a comment. I  revisited the image and really like it. Sorry I waste speaking fro memory. But, as I said, this not germane to the issue at hand.  I expect HST images to be great.  Not the point
Edited ...
Like
ODRedwine 1.51
...
"AstroBin is an image hosting website specifically targeted to astrophotographers: it's the first and the last place where you need to
upload your astrophotography images. Made by an astrophotographer, for
the astrophotographers."
Vote with your like button.  HST and Chile Scope images will get no likes from me.
Edited ...
Like
silkpericles 0.00
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
Alberto Pisabarro:
Rodd Dryfoos:
Hunter Harling:
In my opinion, Hubble data is far more difficult to process than my own data. And to get such unusual color as this one must be worth something.
I disagree...I find Hubble and Liverpool Telescope are hard to get, that's why I can't be bothered.  But once I have it, its easier to process than mine.  From the little data I have processed from these sources, (1 image)  it seems that there are no gradients, calibration issues, LP or other things that plague my own data sets.But difficulty is not really the issue.  Even if it is harder, the images, IMO should not be judged against images captured and processed by individuals with their own equipment.
Hello everyoneIt is interesting and it seems to me that all the comments are totally respectable, I am glad that you have the weather and the time to spend so many hours capturing our precious photons, it is true that the images of Hubble have an advantage over the images that we can acquire as fans , but we all have access to that data, and I have never had any problem accessing it, it is more you can download the data that I download if you click on the link below the image, and we can always create our own version of the same image , as you know it is almost impossible for it to be identical, although I understand that this does not have the same value, it is true that knowing how to handle them the data is magnificent and of an incredible quality, but it must also be borne in mind that many fans of variants, they may not have the facility to have the necessary climate, time or money, and I believe that if they have the option to continue practicing an essential part of the astrophotography with the Hubble data, why not? And if the revealed image is worth it, why won't it be recognized?

I have been practicing this hobby for more than twelve years, I have been an active member of the astronomy association of my city for many years, right now it is physically impossible for me to go out for outreach activities or go out into the mountains to photograph with my team, so As I get the images with a private remote telescope and another commercial one, my images have no value, give me any equipment and I will photograph with it without problems, but first of all give me time, I do not mind sleeping little or being cold, I have spent nights photographing below zero with a trigger in hand, but it is clear that if the weather does not accompany, as it happens now in my region, where winters have gone from being cold and dry to being totally wet, and if I have to choose between my son and stop go out with the telescope, I am clear that I am going to choose, spend time with my son and for the moment until I can, obtain images remotely, and I think that does not detract Value to the images, that you do not like an image is respectable, but I think that the decision of those in charge of selecting the images of the day should not be questioned, after all this is a hobby, where we share interpretations .

A greeting.

Alberto.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to formulate such a well thought out and respectful message.  I never said that I did not like the image, or that people should not process Hubble data (I wish I could do more).  At issue is whether an image processed with Hubble data should be awarded the IOTD on this forum if it is judged against images created with amateur data.  I do not think it should--it is not appropriate IMO.  APOD--definitely, but not Astrobin.  I know there were many great images posted over the course of the same few days--or whatever time period from which he IOTD images are chosen, that the image in question was taken from (not really sure I specified an image actually--I am talking about a concept, not a particular image).  So the idea that not everyone has the time, or the gear, or the clear skies, or the darkness, is not relevant in this case.  Enough did....and usually do (I wanted to sways but that is a dangerous word).

I do believe that there should be image classes and each class (deep sky, solar, planetary, ultra wide field etc) be judged against images of the same class.  After all, there is no reliable way to compare a  lunar crater with a comet--or galaxy, or a solar spicule with a nebula.  To do so is to remove all objectivity in the judging process.  There needs to be objectivity if the award is to have any meaning.  The award must be predicated, at least to some degree, on agreed upon standards--or it is merely a statement of what the judge likes.  A judge may like poodles the most but till vote for a beagle as best dog in the show.  I think this recommendation has been made before.  Too much work?  Bah.  How many images are posted in a day?  whatever that number is--cut it in half as that would probably be about the percentage that could be eliminated immediately.  I have no idea how many images are posted in a 24 hour period.  I would need to know that number.


It is not a nuisance, it is always rewarding to talk politely :-), I honestly did not expect this image to be selected as IOTD, but what for some may be a fair IOTD for others may be unfair, what we have to do is respect the decision From the judges, I understand that spending hours and hours to acquire the necessary light to reveal a goal is very hard to achieve, the images obtained by Hubble are exempt from that effort, but like you, I believe that all subscribers have the right to that their work is taken into account, regardless of the source, after all, processing is as essential a part as making good captures, it is only necessary to see that with less expensive equipment and less integration time, good processing can equal or overcome the result of more expensive teams and with longer integration time. Sure, some categories could be created to judge separately, but after all this is a hobby, the good thing is that in Astrobin we can be part of the group of judges to contribute our point of view, I do not see any problem in that if a Image deserves it, from the point of view of the judges, it is chosen as the image of the day, after all what is chosen is the final image, not the acquisition, and there will always be an image that deserves it even more.

Although thinking about it, you could create a section to also reward the best acquisition, this would be a great idea, but surely someone would find it unfair too, I think it is best not to take it too seriously.

Best greetings.
Alberto
Like
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.