2.86
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
What i am about to write might sound controversial borderline presumptuous but it's not and i hope it will be taken in the spirit in which i am writing it. I started in november 2021 i also was thinking i was capturing kickass images and couldn't understand why they weren't having the appreciation i thought they deserved. If i look at them now, i understand why they weren't appreciated - they were subpar images, to say the least. I was lacking important understanding of deconvolution, color calibration, noise removal and in general deeper knowledge of a variety of tools around processing, stacking and image acquisition. Took a lot of effort, work and failures to actually start capturing images that not only i liked but everyone else. If i refer to the image of the wizard above, i can spot many aspects that can be improved: 1. the whole image is yellowish. 2. Noise reduction killed the detail in the nebula 3. there is a lot of crominance noise in the nebula 4. Star spikes are unrealistically strong, possibly added in post processing? 5. stars are oversaturated and "pop out" unnaturally there are quite a few minor other things that can be worked on but i believe working on these could already improve the image dramatically. Why am i writing this? Because you mentioned you are eager to learn and if i can save someone who is earlier in the journey some time by helping out, i would gladly do it. Does this mean you shouldn't be proud of your work? absolutely not. I kept all my old images, even the mediocre ones, and i cherish them - they are part of the journey that is pushing me forward in the field. Does this mean you should do it for the likes? Absolutely not either. You should do it for yourself, improving in anything you believe is worth putting effort in is the path to happiness. But there is no improvement if we dont learn how to constructively criticise our own work. |
5.61
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Arun H: That is precisely why, although I appreciate getting "likes", they are clearly not a measure of quality but rather a measure of of the number of followers. That, in turn, can be related to quality but can also be related to simple popularity. You can find many, many average images that have far more likes than clearly superior images of the same object. So likes are nice but do not take them too seriously. Awards like IOTD or top pick are a much better measure of quality, although even those are not perfect. Like "likes", they tend to be based on overall impression as opposed to comparison to other images of the same object or a careful technical evaluation. I suspect it is a matter of "so many images, so little time".  In fact, when I image any object my goal is always to try to do as well as the best images of that object that I can find on Astrobin (and have bookmarked for reference). That should be the "gold standard", IMHO..... |
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Charles Bracken: Thanks Charles, good point! It's that and to get followers. I now spoke to many last night, now I tried to follow too many in a row and I am not allowed anymore for a while (I think it was 10 )   CS, Michael |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Emilio Frangella: Thank you Emilio, This is what I am looking for! Unfortunately there are so many clouds in the last months, I am barely able to collect enough data to practice. So I was moving on fom my "I have no clue what filter I need, just get that lenHance" to a pair of Antlia 5nm Dual NB filters and now I am learning how to get the OSC photos into a prober SHO image. 1. the whole image is yellowish. I agree, I did not manage to get the red back, so there is a lot room for improvement in my workflow, despite following lots of YT workflows, it did not work. 2. Noise reduction killed the detail in the nebula OK, I didn't see that, I probably misinterpreted that as a lack of data of my F/6.3 80mm scope. 3. there is a lot of crominance noise in the nebula Maybe I tried to over-correct the lack of red and pushed the colours too much? 4. Star spikes are unrealistically strong, possibly added in post processing? Yes, I stated the software I used, StarSpikes Pro, in the description, it's a test not to let the main object look too lost in the wide field of photography. 5. stars are oversaturated and "pop out" unnaturally Maybe I overdid it there, some say so, others so I only pushed it a bit up, these were my first 10 minute subs, and I was flashed how many more stars I got Thank you a lot for taking your time to look into these details, I will take them into account for another try of processing the image, there are, again, enough clouds coming in. CS, Michael |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Bill McLaughlin:Arun H: Thanks Bill, Good point, I would actually love to get more comments, rather than likes, but then, everybody is busy enough for doing their own stuff and I can already see how much work it is to answer in this threat alone! CS, Michael |
12.17
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Michael Nemetz: You are getting that error message because people have abused the "follow" function. They follow a whole bunch of people, hope that those people follow them back, then drop most of their followers. So Sal limited the maximum number of people you can choose to follow in a given amount of time. |
4.44
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Michael, For having started processing in December, I think you have learned a lot really quickly and your image is truly impressive! I started 4 years ago and it is a tough learning curve! In terms of likes I agree with the others who posted before I did on building a network here, by following and liking and connecting with other imagers. Looking forward to seeing more images from you! For the ASA and Planewave forum comment, I would offer my perspective, I do both backyard Bortle 6 images as well as process remote data from Bortle1 skies in Chile and honestly, while the dark sky data is cleaner and has better resolution and quality, I do struggle with my home setup and try to make the best of the data I get at home as well, and I do appreciate this community for recognizing my backyard images as well as the remote ones. CS Gowri |
5.72
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
While we might like to think that AB is some sort of platform immune to social media algorithms, likes and follows it isn't. I love the platform, but the vagaries of anything such as likes and follows is not some sort of arbitration of "good and bad". Personally I have seen a ton of images that when starting out I thought "oh, great, cool. Nice image but I have seen better". Down the line I realised that the said images are with insane gear at huge focal lengths and are a testament to spending power more than anything else. What I mean is that when you don't know the gear used or the distant tiny object, then one might not be that impressed from a purely visual "pretty picture" point of view. Images that initially talk to me are often very wide and with not super amazing gear. As a total beginner I knew nothing about how it was captured or even what the subject was, and so I had no means of judging anything other than how I initially liked or disliked the image. Like in terrestrial photography, where the images that are sometimes the most appealing and most visceral are even cell phone snaps. Thinking that the effort and gear that went into a shot immediately makes it "better" is not how the visual arts work. It is fully subjective and liking something and judging it is also fully subjective. A rank amateur that knows nothing about the gear or the subject is no less entitled to an opinion than anyone else. A $100,000 telescope does not make your images somehow more valuable than a $400 one to anyone other than yourself. Unless you are doing science and advancing human knowledge. But that is not really what is being discussed here. Do what makes you happy and do it for you. Unless you are doing it for a living, in which case you will inevitably have to start to do stuff that you might not even enjoy, but it is what the market wants. That is the point of a hobby - it is not a competition or a race. The only competitor should really be yourself. |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Michael Nemetz: to my newbie eyes, your image is fantastic. |
1.20
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Michael Nemetz: Please don't be offended and appreciate my sincerity... The spikes in an astrophotography of an APO cannot be seen, they are blasphemy! |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Michele Campini: No worries, appreciate your opinion! I stated the used software in the description I used to get this effect, it's just an attempt. The fact there is software for this means, there are people who actually like this but of course some don't. CS, Michael |
