Top Picks Anything goes · Scott · ... · 49 · 2629 · 0

Slawomir 0.00
...
I feel it might be worthwhile reflecting on the effects a desire to be recognised has on our hobby. It seems that when uncontrolled, such craving may erode away joys of astro-imaging and even lead to bitterness and unhappiness.
Like
mirkodog 0.00
...
Truth!!! Too much “pixel inspecting” going on.  Just enjoy!
Like
Snjór 11.96
...
I feel it might be worthwhile reflecting on the effects a desire to be recognised has on our hobby. It seems that when uncontrolled, such craving may erode away joys of astro-imaging and even lead to bitterness and unhappiness.


^^^this^^^. Well said Slawomir.
Like
mirkodog 0.00
...
·  1 like
Astrophotography in general, in of itself seems so detached from experiencing the beauty of the night sky anyway.  I heard someone once said,  the hobby is mostly filled with efforts of looking down  and getting something to “work” rather than looking up, and experiencing the wonders of above visually.  There’s definitely some truth to that.  Radiohead said, “ambition makes you look pretty ugly.”  I thought astrobin was created mainly as a crowdsourcing tool to begin with; and not really a website dedicated for the pursuits of badges and trophies.  The reason I like astrobin is because I can post and share with other people the tools used to acquire images...as well as post and see images without the loss of quality such as you see on Instagram or Facebook.
Like
RAD
...
Its all a popularity contest.  Popular imagers that post a so-so image get 300 likes and less pupular imagers who post an image every bit as good--if not better -get 60 likes.  (Yes--there are amazing images that get 300 likes too--to those I do not refer).

Yes I have dozens upon dozens of examples, no I will not include them.  But I will say I have images that are liked by 50% of the people that see them--but only 70 people see them.   I have seen images that I would not post if one paid me, and they get 150 likes.  None of it makes any sense to me and it is discouraging

Popularity contests are contrary to what we are trying to do.  All images should be blind judged.  And it is not all opinion.  there are fundamental "rules" to photography that are followed.  For example-pink eye is eschewed in portrait photography.  Exposure can be to high, and contrast to much, and processing artifacts can be obvious, and calibration might stink.....photography is science AND art--especially astrophotography.  Images should be judged on many things--including star profiles, was guiding good? noise levels, processing skill (artifacts? clipping? oversaturation?--no this one is not really opinion either beyond a certain point--palette (green exists in PNs not in most objects.  It does not matter whether its broadband or narrowband--green is to be avoided unless there is evidence that it is actually there.  Otherwise, why not take a picture of a cloudy sky and call it a nebula?

The skill in astrophotography is portraying what is there.  For those of you who spout the quasi nauseating adage that in narrowband anything goes--I counter with "only as far as hue goes"--not contrast, not structure, not saturation level, etc.  You want the nebula chartreuse instead of teal blue, fine--but the other attributes of color, structure, and elements of appropriate digital (or film) processing  should remain the same.     Yes I have pent up frustration......a bit less now.......but the village below the dam is unsettled!
Rodd
Edited ...
Like
RAD
...
Sigga:
I feel it might be worthwhile reflecting on the effects a desire to be recognised has on our hobby. It seems that when uncontrolled, such craving may erode away joys of astro-imaging and even lead to bitterness and unhappiness.
^^^this^^^. Well said Slawomir.


Says a millionaire to a peasant when minimum wage drops and he can no longer afford the bus...."walking is healthy, enjoy it!" (spoken from the passenger seat of a stretch limo) 
Rodd
Like
morefield 11.07
...
·  2 likes
Rodd Dryfoos:
Its all a popularity contest.  Popular imagers that post a so-so image get 300 likes and less pupular imagers who post an image every bit as good–if not better -get 60 likes.  (Yes–there are amazing images that get 300 likes too–to those I do not refer).


Rod,  I'm on the team that recommends the images daily for potential top picks.  I can tell you that likes have nothing to do with the selection.  Most of the images that I recommend have been posted very recently and do not have a large volume of likes yet in any case.

The way it works is that we see a queue of images that have been posted in the last day or two, about six on a screen at once.  If it looks like it might be good enough, I click to see the full resolution version.  Most images fall out there.  I then look at the posted data to see what the degree of difficulty is and decide if I feel it's both worthy of a Top Pick in my opinion and one of the three best of the day (that's all we can recommend).

One other thing I look for is the presence of acquisition details including the Camera, scope, mount, integration times, etc.  I hope to see this in the searchable fields rather than the descriptive comments.

In my opinion there are some things about the process that make it possible for a high quality image to be missed:

1) Very wide fields with small objects are not likely to initially catch our eye
2) Images taken with very modest equipment or from polluted skies may not stand out enough for us to click further and see how many hurdles the imager had to overcome.
3) Images that we have  seen a lot of recently are easier to pass by.  For example, during opposition we see a lot of great Jupiter images and just get a bit de-sensitized.

As my job is to recommend and someone else approves, even if my 3 recommended images are my friend's images they would not be approved by the reviewers if they aren't good images.

We don't get all of the great images in the Top Picks group but 90% of what does get to the Top Picks I think are great.

Kevin
Edited ...
Like
RAD
...
Kevin Morefield:
Rodd Dryfoos:
Its all a popularity contest.  Popular imagers that post a so-so image get 300 likes and less pupular imagers who post an image every bit as good–if not better -get 60 likes.  (Yes–there are amazing images that get 300 likes too–to those I do not refer).
Rod,  I'm on the team that recommends the images daily for potential top picks.  I can tell you that likes have nothing to do with the selection.  Most of the images that I recommend have been posted very recently and do not have a large volume of likes yet in any case.

The way it works is that we see a queue of images that have been posted in the last day or two, about six on a screen at once.  If it looks like it might be good enough, I click to see the full resolution version.  Most images fall out there.  I then look at the posted data to see what the degree of difficulty is and decide if I feel it's both worthy of a Top Pick in my opinion and one of the three best of the day (that's all we can recommend).

In my opinion there are some things about the process that make it possible for a high quality image to be missed:

1) Very wide fields with small objects are not likely to initially catch our eye
2) Images taken with very modest equipment or from polluted skies may not stand out enough for us to click further and see how many hurdles the imager had to overcome.
3) Images that we have  seen a lot of recently are easier to pass by.  For example, during opposition we see a lot of great Jupiter images and just get a bit de-sensitized.

As my job is to recommend and someone else approves, even if my 3 recommended images are my friend's images they would not be approved by the reviewers if they aren't good images.

We don't get all of the great images in the Top Picks group but 90% of what does get to the Top Picks I think are great.

Kevin


Perhaps you are the exception.  I feel that there are better examples of the same target that are overlooked quite often.  And popularity does not mean friendship.  Popularity means name recognition.  I see images that get chosen for top picks or IOTD that get 300 likes and images of the same target not chosen that get 40 likes.  I see images posted by a big name imagers that I feel are way to saturated, or really fall apart at full resolution that get chosen.
Like
morefield 11.07
...
One other thing about the process that I should have mentioned is that the image only appears in the queue the day it is posted and maybe for the day after.  So if you upload it as finished, but really make it great a week later, we won’t see the improved version.
Like
RAD
...
Kevin Morefield:
One other thing about the process that I should have mentioned is that the image only appears in the queue the day it is posted and maybe for the day after.  So if you upload it as finished, but really make it great a week later, we won’t see the improved version.


All final images should be included--regardless of the number of revisions.  Whatever image is labeled "final" in ones library should be fair game as long as it meets the posting time (if there is one).  This fosters improvement and getting the best images you can--which is the goal.  But is there really a posting deadline (as far as when it was posted? I know I had a couple of top picks that were images I posted at least a year previously)
Rodd
Like
morefield 11.07
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
Kevin Morefield:
One other thing about the process that I should have mentioned is that the image only appears in the queue the day it is posted and maybe for the day after.  So if you upload it as finished, but really make it great a week later, we won’t see the improved version.
All final images should be included--regardless of the number of revisions.  Whatever image is labeled "final" in ones library should be fair game as long as it meets the posting time (if there is one).  This fosters improvement and getting the best images you can--which is the goal.  But is there really a posting deadline (as far as when it was posted? I know I had a couple of top picks that were images I posted at least a year previously)
Rodd


Right now the oldest image in my queue was first posted 2 days ago.  My understanding is that if you post it on the "finished" and public upload (the one on the right) that's what causes the image to appear in the queue.  Of course we will see whatever your current edit is when we view it but that will be either a few minutes or max two days after you initially post.

If you repost an new edit rather than update an existing post, then it will appear again in our queue.  But in my opinion, unless it contains different data, that's sort of like spamming the community.  It would certainly overwhelm the review process if we had every revision placed back in the queue.  It's pretty time consuming as it is.
Like
Ethan 0.90
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
All final images should be included--regardless of the number of revisions.  Whatever image is labeled "final" in ones library should be fair game as long as it meets the posting time (if there is one).


That's how it is currently. The revision labeled as final is the one presented to us, and it's available for us to choose as long as the initial upload wasn't too far in the past. If I remember correctly from a couple years ago, the theoretical maximum time between initial upload and IOTD is about 8 weeks.

--Ethan
Edited ...
Like
Snjór 11.96
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
Sigga:
I feel it might be worthwhile reflecting on the effects a desire to be recognised has on our hobby. It seems that when uncontrolled, such craving may erode away joys of astro-imaging and even lead to bitterness and unhappiness.
^^^this^^^. Well said Slawomir.
Says a millionaire to a peasant when minimum wage drops and he can no longer afford the bus...."walking is healthy, enjoy it!" (spoken from the passenger seat of a stretch limo) 
Rodd


Could explain please? Thank you!

Sigga
Like
Florian_Neumann-Pieper 0.90
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
Kevin Morefield:
Rodd Dryfoos:
Its all a popularity contest.  Popular imagers that post a so-so image get 300 likes and less pupular imagers who post an image every bit as good–if not better -get 60 likes.  (Yes–there are amazing images that get 300 likes too–to those I do not refer).
Rod,  I'm on the team that recommends the images daily for potential top picks.  I can tell you that likes have nothing to do with the selection.  Most of the images that I recommend have been posted very recently and do not have a large volume of likes yet in any case.The way it works is that we see a queue of images that have been posted in the last day or two, about six on a screen at once.  If it looks like it might be good enough, I click to see the full resolution version.  Most images fall out there.  I then look at the posted data to see what the degree of difficulty is and decide if I feel it's both worthy of a Top Pick in my opinion and one of the three best of the day (that's all we can recommend).

In my opinion there are some things about the process that make it possible for a high quality image to be missed:

1) Very wide fields with small objects are not likely to initially catch our eye
2) Images taken with very modest equipment or from polluted skies may not stand out enough for us to click further and see how many hurdles the imager had to overcome.
3) Images that we have  seen a lot of recently are easier to pass by.  For example, during opposition we see a lot of great Jupiter images and just get a bit de-sensitized.

As my job is to recommend and someone else approves, even if my 3 recommended images are my friend's images they would not be approved by the reviewers if they aren't good images.

We don't get all of the great images in the Top Picks group but 90% of what does get to the Top Picks I think are great.

Kevin


Perhaps you are the exception.  I feel that there are better examples of the same target that are overlooked quite often.  And popularity does not mean friendship.  Popularity means name recognition.  I see images that get chosen for top picks or IOTD that get 300 likes and images of the same target not chosen that get 40 likes.  I see images posted by a big name imagers that I feel are way to saturated, or really fall apart at full resolution that get chosen.


I go there full, with Rodd his statement. Not only do I feel, but I just notice that certain astrophotographers get a top pic / IOD more often than others, just because the name is more popular. The clearest indication of this was that a couple of colleagues worked on and uploaded the same image from the Chile Scope Sh2-308, and the one with fewer likes and a better image was left blank, but the one with overcoated color and uglier star colors More likes got the top pic within minutes. Since I really wonder how well the selection, the better picture works? Rather less good I would say, rather the popularity of the individual decides on a good picture. If I ever got such an award, I would be very happy about it, but also ask myself, were now my likes and the amount of positive comments crucial And is it really a good picture? My goal is not necessarily to get a top pic now, but I find it funny and unfair to the one who has really created a better picture!Just my 2 cent!Good night and all clear sky

Regards Flo

Ps: Google translate;) I hope you understand what I want to say
Edited ...
Like
RAD
...
Sigga:
Could explain please? Thank you!


That was a bad example, sorry.  What I am trying to say is...…….well, I will just forget the analogy and say it..."Its easy for a person who routinely gets 200 likes per image to say likes are not important".    Similarly, its easy for someone who gets the likes to say "relax, stop pixel peeping and enjoy".

I can think of no better way than likes for beginning imagers to judge the quality of their work, to have opinions from other, more experience imagers, that there has been improvement, or to lend support that his /her judgement about their own image is realistic.  Person A sees an image of M82 on the forum and likes it--it received 300 likes and is amazing.  The imager creates a very nice, very hard fought image that, while perhaps not as great as the example that sparked the inspiration, is nearly so....pretty darned good for a much smaller scope and a light polluted sky.  Processing has nullified the LP, and the image is almost as good, and in some cases better.  When the image gets 40 likes, the imager can only wonder why....is he/she missing something, what can be improved?   Its noticed that only 75 people have looked at the image over a 3 month period...…..the other image has had over a thousand views.  there is an imbalance...….And it is not just me....many times I have emailed 2 images to a fellow imager and asked them if one deserves 3x more likes than the other.  Many times they tell me that the one that received 40 likes is far better than the one that got 150.

But enough...…...The clouds have addled my brain.  seriously.
Rodd
Like
RAD
...
I hope you understand what I want to say


It is much clearer than may sky!! (I suppose that is not saying much these days....but no worries.  I recall the image about which you speak}
Rodd
Like
Christophorus 8.87
...
·  1 like
I also want to give some comments on this topic. There is a serious problem about IOTD and Top Pic. The problem is, that we are more than 30 000 members and only one gets IOTD and maybe two or three of them a Top Pic. This means in practise, that choosing some pictures by the judge will make some  guys lucky, but the overwhelming majority dissapointed. On my opinion this fundamental issue is not  considered enough by the judge, when they give the awards to always the same gyus, what is surely the case.Even not then, when they think that it is the best pic ,this is not a good policy.

So my suggestion would be, to block every astrophotographer for half a year, who got an award, so that the others have a chance to come up. In addition I do not support the pixel fetishism and overexposure mania, which is obviously raging in the judge circle. In some cases, so my opinion, there are examples of  not anymore natural looking IOTD. But mostly they are good.
For all the disappointed guys I would like to suggest not to be sad and to remember that you are doing astrophotography because you like it and not because of any recognition of a judge, which has it own point of view. Why don't you go on and increase your skills anyway and be happy about it....
Like
RAD
...
Why not try an experiment--just for 1 month.  20 images should be chosen by a panel of judges--but chosen blind.  The imagers name should not be known.  Also, for this experiment, professional data should not be included.  This experiment should consist of images captured and processed by amateur individuals--No  Deep Sky West, or other pay for data sites.

The panel chooses 20 images it feels qualify.  Then the images are posted for a week on the web page and members vote.  It would be like a draft--each member ranks the images in the order they feel most appropriate.  The image that gets the most #1 votes gets IOTD, 2nd and 3rd place get top picks, 4 and 5 get honorable mentions

ALL Blind--and no write ups allowed except capture data--we are not voting on the scientific acumen, or descriptive ability of the imager--we are voting on the image.

We may be surprised by the results.--The weakness in this approach would be the 20 images chosen by the panel initially.  Maybe it should be 50 images judged.  Not sure how to take the bias out of the initial selections.
Rodd
Like
Christophorus 8.87
...
Rodd I think this is too complicated and too much work for the admin. Maybee the best way is to stay relaxed and not to mention about any awards....
Like
RAD
...
·  1 like
Christoph Lichtblau:
Rodd I think this is too complicated and too much work for the admin. Maybe the best way is to stay relaxed and not to mention about any awards....


My focus is on likes.  But, since the consensus is why worry about them.  Why not do away with likes, IOTD and top picks, not to mention trending astrophotographer rankings.  Why not make Astrobin a simple gallery where comments of any kind are limited to personal messaging.  If that would be a burden to the admin--then we can do away with the IM and require messaging to be performed via email.
Rodd
Like
Snjór 11.96
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
Sigga:
Could explain please? Thank you!
That was a ...…...The clouds have addled my brain.  seriously.
Rodd


Thank you for taking time to explain Rodd  and hope some solution can be found satisfactory to most.

Best wishes,
Sigga
Like
Epox 0.00
...
In the past AB had a 1 to 5 stars evaluation of the picture. This caused a mess, with people down-voting pictures on purpose and others making double accounts to boost the votes of their pictures. I didn't go much deeper into the matter but as far as I remember a few users were banned from the site and then it was decided to move to a system more in line with all the existing social platforms.

Even if I would never go back to the 1 to 5 stars evaluation, I agree on the possibility that likes, sometimes, are too easily given. On a hand this comes with the nature of the platform: it is social so people make friends and followers and they like each other pictures. On the other hand this make the likes themselves a poor "quality meter" of the picture.

I recently had an idea about likes that I actually wanted to propose: I thought that the like button could be removed from the page that shows the small (regular) image and move it to the fullscreen page close to the full resolution and technical card button. With this modification all users will have to look at least at the fullscreen version of a picture if the want to give a like... and if a user for any obscure reason does "like spamming", he/she will have a double work to do
Like
RAD
...
Andrea Alessandrelli:
In the past AB had a 1 to 5 stars evaluation of the picture. This caused a mess, with people down-voting pictures on purpose and others making double accounts to boost the votes of their pictures. I didn't go much deeper into the matter but as far as I remember a few users were banned from the site and then it was decided to move to a system more in line with all the existing social platforms.Even if I would never go back to the 1 to 5 stars evaluation, I agree on the possibility that likes, sometimes, are too easily given. On a hand this comes with the nature of the platform: it is social so people make friends and followers and they like each other pictures. On the other hand this make the likes themselves a poor "quality meter" of the picture.

I recently had an idea about likes that I actually wanted to propose: I thought that the like button could be removed from the page that shows the small (regular) image and move it to the fullscreen page close to the full resolution and technical card button. With this modification all users will have to look at least at the fullscreen version of a picture if the want to give a like... and if a user for any obscure reason does "like spamming", he/she will have a double work to do


i like it.
Rodd
Like
RAD
...
The other ranking that comes to mind is "Trending Astrophotographers"  There is a last 6 month, last year and all time ranking.  I think teh top 100 are named.  But exceeding the value of the bottom one does not put one on teh lsist apparently--wondering about this.
Rodd
Like
siovene
...
Rodd Dryfoos:
The other ranking that comes to mind is "Trending Astrophotographers"  There is a last 6 month, last year and all time ranking.  I think teh top 100 are named.  But exceeding the value of the bottom one does not put one on teh lsist apparently--wondering about this.Rodd


Hi Rodd,
your index as reported by AstroBin next to your name in the user menu is the "All time" index. The Trending Astrophotography page defaults to the "last year" filter. So as your index is around 121, and that's your overall index, that's not enough to make it into the Top 100 overall, which starts at around 180 currently.

If you're not int he Top 100 this year, is because your 12 month index is lower than the required 120, currently.

Hope this clarifies!
Salvatore
Like
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.