0.90
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos: That's ridiculous. When was the last time we had a blurry grey image get ITOD? |
 #... |
|---|
hat's ridiculous. When was the last time we had a blurry grey image get ITOD?QUOTEQUOTE SELECTEDThat comment is ridiculous--hardly the point |
#... |
|---|
hilescope or whatever are far more rewarded and, IMHO, if pro data are out they should be out as well. We are talking about of a scope whose diameter is *1 meter* under probably the best sky in the planet.Yes that would qualify. Sorry I did not name every single one I have complained about 2 things Likes and IOTD. Exaggerate much? |
#... |
|---|
Don't take me wrongly but I think, Rodd, in totally honesty that sometimes you wake up with the wrong foot and decide to complain about every single stuff here on Astrobin.Let's do categories, than you'll complain that your image XYZ is not worse than the other one that has been featured IOTD. I'm not inventing anything, you did it in the past.By the way--you are the one that left Astrobin in a huff because you did not get your way with IOTD. And you are telling me I c0mplain too much? |
11.24
#... |
|---|
| I would be happy to cast a vote. |
|
0.90
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos: The point is the system doesn't go to the extreme you pointed out. You wanting two categories will still lead to subjective decisions. |
#... |
|---|
The point is the system doesn't go to the extreme you pointed out. You wanting two categories will still lead to subjective decisionsReduce subjectivity as much as possible--nothing is perfect. But I would much prefer a judge trying to compare two nebulae, or Planets, then the Moon and a widefield shot of the Milky way. At least teh two subjects can be subjectively considered with any meaning |
#... |
|---|
f I'm not wrong I was a judge so no IOTD allowed.But I agree with you, I was for categories.Yes we have struck a black hole......where's that rabbit? |
0.90
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos: There are no rules except that reviewers get what submitters give them and judges get what reviewers give them. I was involved in the process from the creation of its current iteration a few years ago until a few months ago. In that time, there were no formal guidelines for choosing images. APOD is a system where two people choose images they like. I checked their site and today's photo is of a waterspout. This isn't the first, nor second, but at least the third time this one has been featured. IMHO, we will be fine with pro data being awarded IOTD on rare occasions. If you disagree, please show us your ideal system when the competition module lands. If enough people think you are right, perhaps it will be implemented in IOTD and we all benefit from an improved competition. --Ethan |
#... |
|---|
yes I disagree. Not sure I have much to say moving forward except what I have already said. If the only change made is eliminating pro data from the IOTD (and yes TP too) I will be satisfied. Categories would be nice but one step at a time. I do not really care for me as I have never gotten an IOTD and do not expect to. But when I see an HST image get it, I feel bad for the folks who captured their own data and lost outRodd Dryfoos:There are no rules except that reviewers get what submitters give them and judges get what reviewers give them. I was involved in the process from the creation of its current iteration a few years ago until a few months ago. In that time, there were no formal guidelines for choosing images. |
8.04
#... |
|---|
Salvatore Iovene: There have been so many arguments about comparing images from different sources. I think the only way to stop the arguments is to have different contests and IMO this is long overdue but welcome. I totally lost interest in IOTD since the last argument and survey back in 2018 https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astrobin/annoucements/iotd-and-top-picks-manifesto/) which revealed a big majority of members thought there should be categories but this was over-ridden by yourself (Salvatore). Perhaps once these contests start I will start taking interest again. FYI, I am stuck at home during the Coronavirus outbreak in Bortle 8 with a limited FOV and it's VERY frustrating, so I may in the near future resort to working on some data I did not capture just to keep me sane (when it becomes available), but I would not expect it to be compared to images that have been self captured, in fact I am thinking of setting up a separate account for it so the images are not muddled up with my own self captured data. It will be interesting to see what results and feedback I get. Carole |
2.62
#... |
|---|
|
Hi there 2 categories and the problem is solved... Categorie 1: Amateur astrophotography Categorie 2 : Professional data/ Remote source And if it happens: 2 IOTD CS Gabriel |
0.90
#... |
|---|
Gabriel Siegl: Yes, this is so simple. But Category 2 will be less interesting so this is why they don't want to be separated. Justsaying.... |
2.41
#... |
|---|
| It is really that simple: just create two categories and done - we got two problems instead of one! |
|
2.41
#... |
|---|
Separating pro data from the rest raises more issues than solving. Just to elaborate - one obvious problem is that no one will be able to enforce this separation. No one can force people to tell the truth. We already enforced "source" field in acquisition data and guess what - the number of 'Own Remote Observatories' suddenly skyrocketed. And if you create a rule that you can not control you only make the whole thing less fair for honest people and better for people who just don't give a damn about being honest. |
#... |
|---|
|
My idea is a little bit more....I do not know the exact details, but I think there should be several categories such as this. Yes there could be sub categories, such as star clusters could be separated into open and globular, and nebula could be separated into emission and reflection, but in its simplest, I think this about covers it. Not perfect, but better. My inclination would be to treat narrowband nebula together with broadband nebula---for the sake of simplicity. But I could see having a narrowband category. Narrowband is mostly emission nebula so it might be just 1 more category. 1) Solar system 2) Nebula 3) Galaxies 4) Wide field (galaxy clusters, Orion Loop, Milky Way shots etc) 5) Star Clusters 6) Professional Data (HST, LPT, Chile, DSW, IT) Setting up and running your own remote observatory is OK. Where to draw the line? Its like the famous Judge's comment about pornography. "You know it when you see it" Will everybody be happy? no. But to me it makes more sense to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Yes there is still an issue for the hyper critical. For example, how can one compare the Rosette Nebula with the Veil Nebula. Well, much easier than comparing the Rosette Nebula to Venus. At least they are similar One reason I asked how many submissions there were was because if there are 10 images submitted, some categories may not be represented. So I think maybe some of the categories should be weekly, or monthly, depending on rarity of entries. After all, if only one person submits a reflection nebula they will win by default. But now we are getting complicated. I also would not be opposed to doing away with the IOTD completely. After all, can one really say X is better than Y if both are excellent? Maybe the real answer is to just have top picks--the top 10 images (3 is not enough--but again, this depends on the number of entrants.) possible ones to consider, but should keep total number reasonable. Maybe could have specialty contests a) Super nova remnants b) shock wave images c) Wolf Rayet Star Structures d) Multiple star systems (binary, trinary etc) e) Avant-garde (hyper saturated, experimental, inverted, showing motion, etc) Unbrellas up troops, get ready....the $@#! is going to come down! |
#... |
|---|
Nikita Misiura:What do you mean you enforced it? |
#... |
|---|
Nikita Misiura:If you do not want it to work, you will always find a way to make it sound impossible. If you are worried about people lying, than lets just throw in the towel because it would not be worth associating with folks. In fact, I am pretty insulted by this concept. Astrophotogaphers take pride in their work, and from my experience are honest and passionate about their craft. You are using petty arguments to prove it is not possible because you are not in favor of it. I would rather you said that you just dont like it....no explanation needed.Separating pro data from the rest raises more issues than solving.Just to elaborate - one obvious problem is that no one will be able to enforce this separation. No one can force people to tell the truth. |
|
2.41
#... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos: Just WOW |
 #... |
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos: Rodd Dryfoos: This is what I'm working on. I think I've mentioned a lot of times already  A generic community-driven contests module: there will be multiple contests at the same time, based on community suggestions, like yours. It's going to involve everyone as far as voting is concerned, and there's going to be a reputation system based on provided feedbacks, that is going to make it very fun and engaging.It's a complex task and it will be a while, especially with me being so time-constrained and having to also handle every-day tasks and user support, which takes a lot of time. However, the IOTD will remain as is until it gets obsoleted by the new module, in which case it will be migrated to it. |
9.90
#... |
|---|
|
Well, I am starting to miss the point of it all. The idea of having an "Image of the Day" is to choose one Image. As I already said, I think the main drive behind this image should be aesthetical, IMHO. This is a photography site, not a scientific one. Astrophotography is a mix of art and science one could argue. But we are mainly driven by beauty I feel. Beauty, not Ego. Hopefully we do this because we love the Universe, we love being able as amateurs to produce image that are becoming better than those produced by professionals some decades or years ago. The motor that drives all this discussion is that some equate "Image of the Day" with "Astrophotographer of the Day". Once you realize that this is not the case, all this talk starts making less sense. Rodd, there is a contest called Astronomy Photographer of the Year : they have multiple categories from the Moon, our Sun, Stars and Nebulae, Robotic scope etc. Submissions are open to everybody. Astrobin is an amateur site, conceived by an amateur, with people that volunteer to do all this selection work. There are 365 days in a year. I don't think that all these days are 365 contests organized by this amateur site, but it's a problem of perspective. This cannot rival with a once a year contest in terms of organization, management and outcome. Astrophotography is very unfair. Why not do contests for people with under 5K equipment and 10-20K equipment and over 20K equipment? Why not Bortle < 4, Bortle 5-7 and 8-9? Is a home observatory the same as a remote observatory or not, when you can pilot them both from your couch upstairs? I had a lot of headaches making my guiding work nicely and some people just have mounts that do better unguided than my whole system does. Another category? What are we going to do with groups of friends that installed their own remote in Chile - say that they must compete with Subaru? Can I compete with them if I rent the 500mm ASA Newtonian from Chilescope for 3 hours when other people under the same dark skies can collect 30h with their scopes? Well, if you think that all of this is a competition, you should do lots of categories, like in boxing. On the other hand, if we take things more lightly, maybe what matters is the impression and the pleasure one image produced when we saw it on the site. I am sorry, but having an expensive Takahashi won't produce automatically beautiful nebulae, just like having a C14 won't produce memorable lunar or planetary images by itself. Professional scopes can produce crappy subs and I like more some galaxies imaged by talented backyard people. I can remember even now the impression Roberto Colombari's Vela image did on me and frankly I don't even remember how he did or what professional or personal data he combined. I really don't care. Lee Borsboom's outstanding image of the Dragons has better scaling thant the T3 from Chilescope (I worked on the same target) and the HOO palette is just brilliant. I never played with the Hubble data of the Lagoon nebula because I didn't think it could be given a different perspective since the original is a modern classic, till I saw Alberto's version and I thought 'WTF!? Unbelievable' That impression won't go away just because it is in the "wrong professional category". Voilà, my thoughts. I am doing some Chilescope projects right now in parallel with my backyard ones, hope I won't get shot if I post the final images. CS, Bogdan |
11.14
#... |
|---|
Bogdan Borz: LOL good luck with your projects! I totally agree with you! Cheers! |
11.96
#... |
|---|
Bogdan Borz: I look forward to see Bogdan! |
|
9.90
#... |
|---|
Bogdan Borz:Thanks for mentioning, it has been conceived together with Robert by building a huge DSS2-R-B mosaic and amateur data. Thanx Roberto, I was unsure if it was a collaboration, Robert should be mentioned too of course. CS! |
|
9.90
#... |
|---|
Die Launische Diva:Bogdan Borz:LOL good luck with your projects! I totally agree with you! Thank you : ) |
