Cookie consent

AstroBin saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to deliver better content and for statistical purposes. You can disable the usage of cookies by changing the settings of your browser. By browsing AstroBin without changing the browser settings, you grant us permission to store that information on your device.

I agree

IOTD

Bobinius
17 May, 2020 00:00
Christoph Lichtblau
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.

Hi Christoph,

I agree that astrophotography is more than the processing part. But the IOTD is already reflecting that, we see almost exclusively only astrophotographer data and images. Implying that a processed image should never be IOTD seem a bit harsh. I don't get what you mean by "buyed data" from chilescope. It is remotely controlled material which as you know is not free, it costs something. Just like buying/renting a remote place under a dark sky where you install the scope that you bought and you control it remotely is finally bought data. It is automatic and controlled over the internet. It has its own difficulties and there are teams over there that have to supervise the site. The data is acquired remotely and is "bought" just like other remote data. Hopefully you are not equating remote astrophotography with Hubble processing.

I already brought my own material to a Bortle 4 zone and it was night and day. I couldn't believe the difference. The SNR was incredible, the guiding was easy, seeing is wonderful in the mountains. So yes, I don't know if I can compete with other people that live in Bortle 3/4/5, when I have humidity around 60-80% and a seeing generally not so good plus the Bortle 8 zone. It can be really frustrating. But as I said before, finally we are aesthetically judging the images presented here. I really love the work of people that manage to produce fantastic results from light polluted zones (I was really surprised to see you were in a Bortle 5!) or with inexpensive material. It motivates one to get better. I think though that we are liking the final image for its intrinsic qualities and that's the final verdict.

All best,

Bogdan
jcoldrey
17 May, 2020 00:12
Great conversation, and well explained perspectives.
From my personal perspective, I find Alberto's IOTD to be unique and inspiring.
An occasional Hubble or Liverpool telescope IOTD does not bother me in the slightest.
Especially if the image stands out from an artistic perspective, and is not just technically superb.

CS,
Jeff
RAD
17 May, 2020 00:29
Alberto Pisabarro
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
that is my point.  I do not believe an HST image deserves it.  It has nothing to do with image quality.  And I do not believe judges are god. There are rules imposed on judges.  This should be one.  Professional data should not be judged against amateur data.   That is my opinion and I am glad that some agree with me
adamland
17 May, 2020 01:08
[0] days since last IOTD thread
Andys_Astropix
17 May, 2020 03:18
Jeff
Great conversation, and well explained perspectives.From my personal perspective, I find Alberto's IOTD to be unique and inspiring.
An occasional Hubble or Liverpool telescope IOTD does not bother me in the slightest.
Especially if the image stands out from an artistic perspective, and is not just technically superb.

CS,
Jeff

FYI - As a judge, it's not often that a Hubble image gets a gong from me on AB, it's usually seen here as having a somewhat unfair advantage - Lol smile
This one however was the first I have awarded IOTD. This image is in my opinion, absolutely original, well found & superbly processed!
Congratulations Alberto on a well deserved IOTD!  smile
RAD
17 May, 2020 03:34
Andy 01
Jeff
Great conversation, and well explained perspectives.From my personal perspective, I find Alberto's IOTD to be unique and inspiring.An occasional Hubble or Liverpool telescope IOTD does not bother me in the slightest.
Especially if the image stands out from an artistic perspective, and is not just technically superb.

CS,
Jeff

FYI - As a judge, it's not often that a Hubble image gets a gong from me on AB, it's usually seen here as having a somewhat unfair advantage - Lol smile
This one however was the first I have awarded IOTD. This image is in my opinion, absolutely original, well found & superbly processed!
Congratulations Alberto on a well deserved IOTD!  smile
Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged.
Andys_Astropix
17 May, 2020 03:59
Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged.

Hi Rodd,
No, but thank you for your response.
All images in the TP queue are currently considered for IOTD, regardless of the source. We judges carefully scrutinise each image based on several criteria and reward those we believe to worthy of a gong. An HST image has to be truly exceptional to be awarded in my opinion, which this one certainly is.

Also , if you don't me saying so - you may wish to add a little courtesy to your future replies.
matherneconnor
17 May, 2020 06:09
Andy 01
No, but thank you for your response.All images in the TP queue are currently considered for IOTD, regardless of the source. We judges carefully scrutinise each image based on several criteria and reward those we believe to worthy of a gong. An HST image has to be truly exceptional to be awarded in my opinion, which this one certainly is.

Also , if you don't me saying so - you may wish to add a little courtesy to your future replies.
Totally agree.

There are tons of Hubble images uploaded here. Are the Hubble versions technically better images of  a target like the Sunflower Galaxy compared to others that anyone posted? Of course it is better than everyone's. Well, if a Sunflower from Hubble is posted here, then surely they must been given IOTD, right? Of course all the Hubble images are not given IOTD or TP, despite being the best images of a target. It is much more rare to see a one awarded. Why? Because images like that need to be beyond exceptional to be worthy of the title.

Rodd Dryfoos
The other one might have been a Livderppol telescope and it might have been a TP–can't recall.

I think this may be a reference to my image actually. I won't assume that though, but I will still use it as an example.

Not all data is perfect, and scientific data is no exception. I attached below what an STF of the image at the beginning of processing. Getting rid of those gradients and dust mites were worse than I have ever had on my own data sets. That doesn't even come close to the difficult of removing that grid though.  Beyond the defects in the data, the galaxy beyond the core itself has a terribly low SNR that was a pain to bring out above the noise floor. Sure the final image may look nice, but it was by far one of the worst data sets I have ever worked with and it took a lot of work to get it to that point.
 
Bobinius
17 May, 2020 08:19
You made a giant leap with the processing Connor ! Really interesting to see how it  looks in the beginning. I mean even Hubble has severe star artifacts, lots of hot pixels. Sometimes it is difficult to say what is an artifact (like those flames above the big stars in Arp 273, they edited them in the official version ). However, this will make me abandon my project of installing a remote rig in La Palma smile Too much light pollution and gradients  : )) (weird though that they have these problems with the Liverpool telescope - a low target?).

CS,
Bogdan
koten90
17 May, 2020 09:41
I opened a similar thread about one year ago. Unfortunately nothing was made to solve the "problem" and so many threads have been posted to argument against IOTD gained with a remote telescope (professional as HST or even rent far far away in the desert with the best possible conditions). This means that a huge part of people on Astrobin find this an issue.
As a submitter for the IOTD, I NEVER submit an image if the source is not Backyard or Private Property remote observatory: my intent is to consider just people with its own gear, set up and maintained by theirselves (even in groups, associations, couples, etc). I personally do not appreciate the idea of rewarding someone who pays for the service of maintenance, even on owned gear set up in a remote plant; at least not in the same category of someone other that spend hours and money in refining the setting up.
I don't see, at this point, the problem of judging different categories of subjects (nebula vs moon, sun prominence vs galaxy… ) because, if you consider the aesthetics, you can see in a moment a clean image, with the necessary contrast and sharpness. There is a pool of judges and they all vote for the one they like most (I don't know the exact mechanism and criteria of judging, but I suppose that the winner is the one which takes most votes).
I think there would be any problem in having 2 IOTD in the same day: 1 own-gear and 1 rent-gear (which collects rent, own gear but in a remote hosting with maintenance service and professional data).
We could at least take a survey to see how many feel this as an issue.
Edited 17 May, 2020 09:42
siovene
17 May, 2020 10:11
Just for everybody's information, I'm working on a generic contests module so we can have as many contests as we want, many running at the same time, and the voting is going to involve the whole community and be pretty awesome smile
RAD
17 May, 2020 10:19
Andy 01
Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged.Hi Rodd,
No, but thank you for your response.
All images in the TP queue are currently considered for IOTD, regardless of the source. We judges carefully scrutinise each image based on several criteria and reward those we believe to worthy of a gong. An HST image has to be truly exceptional to be awarded in my opinion, which this one certainly is.

Also , if you don't me saying so - you may wish to add a little courtesy to your future replies.Yeah, I know your position, I disagree with it.  If you don’t mind me saying, there was nothing discourteous in my statement. Perhaps you are transferring annoyance to the words because you do not like to be questioned? Sorry.  I don’t think HST data should be judged against personally collected data regardless of image quality.  As I said before. There is not much more to say. No reason to start an argument about perceived slights.
RAD
17 May, 2020 10:31
Salvatore Iovene
Just for everybody's information, I'm working on a generic contests module so we can have as many contests as we want, many running at the same time, and the voting is going to involve the whole community and be pretty awesome smile
sounds promising.
rob77
17 May, 2020 12:44
Hunter Harling
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.

Hubble data are the easiest one to be processed among the pro data, BTW. And for many of them you don't even need to mosaic.

Cheers
Edited 17 May, 2020 12:45
rob77
17 May, 2020 12:57
Connor Matherne
Not all data is perfect, and scientific data is no exception. I attached below what an STF of the image at the beginning of processing. Getting rid of those gradients and dust mites were worse than I have ever had on my own data sets. That doesn't even come close to the difficult of removing that grid though.  Beyond the defects in the data, the galaxy beyond the core itself has a terribly low SNR that was a pain to bring out above the noise floor. Sure the final image may look nice, but it was by far one of the worst data sets I have ever worked with and it took a lot of work to get it to that point.

Making an off-topic, I usually had this pattern on the raw frames, blue channel, from Subaru.
I was used to get rid of them calibrating with flat, bias and dark.

I haven't understood where this data come from, are calibration frames available for them?

Cheers
Edited 17 May, 2020 12:58
rob77
17 May, 2020 13:01
Alessio Pariani
As a submitter for the IOTD, I NEVER submit an image if the source is not Backyard or Private Property remote observatory: my intent is to consider just people with its own gear, set up and maintained by theirselves (even in groups, associations, couples, etc). I personally do not appreciate the idea of rewarding someone who pays for the service of maintenance, even on owned gear set up in a remote plant; at least not in the same category of someone other that spend hours and money in refining the setting up.
Even if I produce many images with pro data I agree with Carole that maybe they should in a separated category, by the way - in my opinion - your statement goes far beyond what is the actual main goal of astrobin which is to promote the best/original images, not discriminating anyone.

I hope you will review your thoughts.

Cheers
Edited 17 May, 2020 13:04
RAD
17 May, 2020 13:04
Andy 01
Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged.Hi Rodd,
No, but thank you for your response.
All images in the TP queue are currently considered for IOTD, regardless of the source. We judges carefully scrutinise each image based on several criteria and reward those we believe to worthy of a gong. An HST image has to be truly exceptional to be awarded in my opinion, which this one certainly is.

Also , if you don't me saying so - you may wish to add a little courtesy to your future replies. Yeah, I know your position, I disagree with it.  If you don’t mind me saying, there was nothing discourteous in my statement. Perhaps you are transferring annoyance to the words because you do not like to be questioned? Sorry.  I don’t think HST data should be judged against personally collected data regardless of image quality.  As I said before. There is not much more to say. No reason to start an argument about perceived slights.
RAD
17 May, 2020 13:06
Roberto Colombari
Alessio Pariani
As a submitter for the IOTD, I NEVER submit an image if the source is not Backyard or Private Property remote observatory: my intent is to consider just people with its own gear, set up and maintained by theirselves (even in groups, associations, couples, etc). I personally do not appreciate the idea of rewarding someone who pays for the service of maintenance, even on owned gear set up in a remote plant; at least not in the same category of someone other that spend hours and money in refining the setting up.
Even if I produce many images with pro data I agree with Carole that maybe they should in a separated category, by the way - in my opinion - your statement goes far beyond what is the actual main goal of astrobin which is to promote the best/original images, not discriminating anyone.

I hope you will review your thoughts.

Cheers
  Hard to be considered original when the data is collected from Hubble.
RAD
17 May, 2020 13:08
Rodd Dryfoos
Andy 01
Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged.
Hi Rodd,No, but thank you for your response.
All images in the TP queue are currently considered for IOTD, regardless of the source. We judges carefully scrutinise each image based on several criteria and reward those we believe to worthy of a gong. An HST image has to be truly exceptional to be awarded in my opinion, which this one certainly is.

Also , if you don't me saying so - you may wish to add a little courtesy to your future replies. Yeah, I know your position, I disagree with it.  If you don’t mind me saying, there was nothing discourteous in my statement. Perhaps you are transferring annoyance to the words because you do not like to be questioned? Sorry.  I don’t think HST data should be judged against personally collected data regardless of image quality.  As I said before. There is not much more to say. No reason to start an argument about perceived slights.
Edited 17 May, 2020 13:08
rob77
17 May, 2020 13:10
Alberto's processing on this object has been truly amazing. Never seen such a processing for a Hubble image. Yes, he did a very original job, besides aesthetically being great.

Cheers.
RAD
17 May, 2020 13:10
Roberto Colombari
I hope you will review your thoughts.
Really?  I hope folks that disagree with me will reconsider too.
rob77
17 May, 2020 13:11
I was replying to Pariani, not you Rodd
Magellen
17 May, 2020 13:16
Ahh … an IOTD thread again …

My situation is as follows: I live in Vienna, a 2 million people city and I lve there in a flat, so there is no way to have a permanent setup. Each an every time I want to take a picture, I have to load my car and drive for one hour, to get to a reasonable dark place. There I have to set up my gear. After each session, after driving back, I have to unload my car.

Do I envy backyard astrophotographers? Sure, sometimes. Does that put me in any way in a situation to define, what "real" astrophotography is? No, not at all!

Do we have to build our own equipment to be IOTD worthy? Do we have to write our own post processing software? Do we have to setup our equipment each and every time to use it? I dont know and frankly: I don't care. There are many ways to do our hobby, I have choosen mine, other have choosen others. I can not see whats wrong with that.

For me, AP is more about cooperation than competion. For others Salvatores new competion module should give some relief.
RAD
17 May, 2020 13:16
Roberto Colombari
Alberto's processing on this object has been truly amazing
Why not include sketches in the judging?  Quality of processing is beside the point.  The initial premise is HST and other professional data should not be judged against data collected by individuals.   Arguing that its a great image does not change anything. It should be a great image.
RAD
17 May, 2020 13:19
Rodd Dryfoos
Also , if you don't me saying so - you may wish to add a little courtesy to your future replies.
 Yeah, I know your position, I disagree with it.  If you don’t mind me saying, there was nothing discourteous in my statement. Perhaps you are transferring annoyance to the words because you do not like to be questioned? Sorry.  I don’t think HST data should be judged against personally collected data regardless of image quality.  As I said before. There is not much more to say. No reason to start an argument about perceived slights.
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.