9.90
#... |
---|
Christoph Lichtblau: 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 |
3.35
#... |
---|
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 |
#... |
---|
Alberto Pisabarro: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 meRodd Dryfoos:Alberto Pisabarro: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).Rodd Dryfoos: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 .Hunter Harling: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. |
0.00
#... |
---|
[0] days since last IOTD thread |
11.25
#... |
---|
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 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! ;) |
#... |
---|
Andy 01:Jeff: Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged. |
11.25
#... |
---|
[/quote]Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged.[/quote] 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. |
0.90
#... |
---|
Andy 01: 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: 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. |
9.90
#... |
---|
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 Too much light pollution and gradients : )) (weird though that they have these problems with the Liverpool telescope - a low target?). CS, Bogdan |
#... |
---|
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. |
#... |
---|
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 |
#... |
---|
Andy 01:Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged.[/quote]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.[/quote]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. |
#... |
---|
Salvatore Iovene:sounds promising. |
#... |
---|
Andy 01:Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged.[/quote]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.[/quote] 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. |
#... |
---|
Hard to be considered original when the data is collected from Hubble.Alessio Pariani: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. |
#... |
---|
Rodd Dryfoos:Hi Rodd,No, but thank you for your response.Andy 01:Then judge it against other HST/Liverpool Telescope (and other) images where it belongs to be judged. 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.[/quote] 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.[/quote] |
#... |
---|
I hope you will review your thoughts.Really? I hope folks that disagree with me will reconsider too. |
9.85
#... |
---|
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. |
#... |
---|
Alberto's processing on this object has been truly amazingWhy 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. |
#... |
---|
Rodd Dryfoos: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. |
0.00
#... |
---|
Here we go again... |
9.85
#... |
---|
Rodd Dryfoos: Mr. Dryfoos, why do you think you are the one to define the rules? |
#... |
---|
Fritz:At issue is professional grade data captured with a space telescope being judged against amateur data. No one said it is bad to use. It just should not be judged against amateur data. |
#... |
---|
Its my opinion.....am I not allowed to have one?Rodd Dryfoos:Where did you get it from? Is it a specific Astrobin policy? Just asking 'cos I'm not aware of this... |
#... |
---|
Fritz:We may all have an opinion. Thankfully, many agree with me. What I think is improper is trying to tell someone that they should not have an opinion, or voice their opinion. Who are you to do that?Rodd Dryfoos:Mr. Dryfoos, why do you think you are the one to define the rules? |