 #...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
Sorry for my English, first of all.... Well, this is an old topic but it needs to come up again, as the situation is only going to get worse. Half of the IOTD photos from the last month (maybe the last year) came from remote observatories. In other words, the guy pressed a button a few nights, woke up and then just processed an already excellent image (which is a simple task, nowadays, since you can take a photo in a bortle better than 4). Given the increasing ease of processing. A twelve year old child would do this if he had the money to build such an observatory. I ask if Astrobin will continue to reward robots only (the "geniuses", and often friends with each other and figures already stamped here on the site) or will they also reward other "mortals" (people who take photos of their backyard, look for different frammings, travel to get a better place, and they need to do double or triple the exposure of the geniuses, etc...). There are few exceptions, of course, on both sides. I do not question the immense quality of the images, but the recognition criteria. Well, it's just a suggestion on an open forum. I do not want offend anyone, it is just the reality here. I'm not at the level of the best here (although I have half a dozen photos from angles that no one had ever photographed and that weren't even recognized). I believe that is what art is, what deviates from simple technique and repetition. For the reasons above, I even gave up competing, because I know that I have a lot of poor quality stuff (most of it) and that I can't beat a jury that prefers robots and people who have already won prizes rather than newcomers... There are countless examples of IOTD, in which the same photo, in the same month, same framing, of equal quality of a "genius" and 2 newcomers was not awarded. Only genius was recognized. Well, the jury, which is a very difficult and laborious activity I know! (voluntary and for the members) are very genereous people . Many thanks for them! But it is very biased, in my opinion only for: 1- any photo that has more than 30 hours of exposure (it doesn't matter if it is a repeated object or with huge halos). A title with "100 hours of exposure" and "gigapixels" is already a bit IOTD. 2- preference for figures already repeated here on the website, even when the photos are of questionable quality ... 3- Obvious preference for rewarding new planetary nebulae (so far so good), but which are repeated on the same guys. The biggest problem is the contempt for those who don't have a remote observatory to capture nebulae. Furthermore, most people are not interested in that. Out of respect for other colleagues, there should be a monthly or bimonthly IOTD limit. Otherwise, the robots will continue with everything. Best regards and clear skies to all. respost: Hello friends, I'm scared by the innocence of many people here. I would say “ideologically manipulated” in the Marxist/Spinozist sense (men of “conscience” only). 1- Yes, this is just a hobby, so of course we could just take photos and forget the rest, which is what I do, like many others. That's why I unsubscribed from Iotd, that's not what's being discussed!!!!!!!!!!! and yes, bad taste. If you have bad taste, ok, move on. There's no reason to be here, just stay on Facebook with other colleagues….l…. My photos are average level and I keep posting here, I keep deepening and improving and I don't care about other people's opinions. As I said, I chose to exclude myself from the competition. 2 – But since there is competition (science is driven by competition too, don't be innocent or angels from paradise, there is a Nobel Prize, do you know that?) then it is questionable to worry about healthy competition. Even more so because there is a guide to the tastes of the innocent majority in this (like a literary or scientific award, for example). So it's right to also question them, right? The winning (roboticized) images are the ones that appear most often and we are forced to swallow the robots. As Rudiger said, this ends up creating a false pattern to be followed, even if unconsciously…. 3- Yes, as Astrobin is not a website that has millions of dollars, remote observatories end up exerting considerable pressure, in other words, you are defending them. I recognize the effort and immense generosity of the volluntary jurors even so.!! 4- Answer: I can't see the “effort” of a rich guy with a remote observatory, as they said above... Their employees do it and they get the credit. It must be very difficult to travel in business class to Chile or Namibia. Many would not be able to make polar food, etc….I am not against them !!! They bring amazing images to us. I am only questioning the awards jus for them.... 5- We know of 2 or 3 astrophotographers here, Planetary Nebula hunting “geniuses” who would simply like to extirpate the rest. In their minds, that's all it's worth. 5- My suggestion would be to eliminate the IOTD or do an “IOTDS”, for at least 3 times a day. Given the amount of excellent images that appear every day. Best |
4.65
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I invite you to read about the IOTD process, I'll link it below. Your main point is covered in the FAQ at the bottom. You've gotten a couple Top Pick Nominations and a Top Pick just browsing through your images. That's more than I would guess 95% of us here on Astrobin. I'd be lying if I said I never thought about some of the same things you brought up, but after reading about the IOTD process, it makes more sense to me at least. https://welcome.astrobin.com/iotd |
18.93
#...
·
·
9
likes
|
|---|
|
Hello Ricardo, I share your opinion in many ways. I see also, that the remote site images get the new "normal" and all backyard AP have to compete with that level. For me, a decent or even a bad backyard image is much, much more enjoyable, than the best remote image. That is exactly the reason why I give also likes to the images you mentioned as questionable. They deserve a like, because it was gained with a lot of effort and pain. If I want to see perfect images only then I visit the NASA site. Don't get me wrong, there are good and valid reasons to go remote and everybody should do what he likes, but declaring the level of remote images as new scale for all images is hard to bare. As being backyard imager with suburban bortle 6, I can do what ever I want, but I will not achieve the details, exposure time or HFR of a remote site. At the moment it looks to me, that technical perfectness is the most important criteria. I advocated also many times to have dedicated categories, though it might raise new questions and concerns - no doubt. I also consider not to submit my images anymore, since I do not understand it anymore. Not because I feel personally not rewarded, but because I do not understand the criteria anymore. And I share these feelings with many of my friends here. We discuss it a lot. But maybe we have to accept, that AB is moving in this direction, life with it or just bail out. CS Rüdiger |
1.51
#...
·
·
8
likes
|
|---|
| Why care about ITOD so much? I never look forward to getting any ITOD! Enjoy the hobby and that is the most important thing. |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
Yuexiao Shen: Totally agreeing. Personally I do not care about IOTD since I ignore them, but I consider the trend of taking the level of remote images as the new "normal level of expectations" as very irritating. I don't know, whether this is a healthy trend and motivates people. AB should be also a cozy place for all. CS Rüdiger |
|
1.51
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Ruediger:Yuexiao Shen: Astrophotography changed a lot in the last decade. CCD is replaced by cheaper cmos. More people are using full frame camera now. Scopes are also more affordable. Mounts move to those smaller harmonic drive types. And more people move to remote. Remote imaging becomes a business Some people just pay money and click on the button and download images from those commercial remote sites Some people just buy good equipment and send to remote sites, but they never touch their equipment, install or optimize the system by themselves. They pay to get the system running. Some people travel with their equipment and join the installation and optimize the system Some people built their own remote sites and try to run everything by themselves Some people still drive to dark site and do mobile imaging Some people stick with their backyard. You can see the efforts and enthusiasm put on this hobby is different from people to people. When you compete with an image generated from a 1-meter scope in Chile, how can you beat it with a 0.1 m refractor? That is why I say, you pay the money, spend the time, and enjoy the hobby for yourself, not for others. |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
Yuexiao Shen: You are basically right, but with this attitude, we would not need to upload any images here at all. Then it would be ok, to have it on your private PC or a printout at the wall of your living room. We share it here, because we are proud of our hard gained results and enjoy it together with friends and get here and there a cookie as motivation. That drives us - at least me. A "Well Done!" is a real moral boost - especially in a hobby where you have so many epic fails. And I am pretty sure, everybody here is happy, pleased and motivated by positive feedback - also for his "Not-Hubble-Like-Image". |
11.35
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
Remote imaging is increasing in popularity along with purchasing complete data sets for processing, and we all know that dark, clear skies produce the best images. The Astrobin awards system awards images literally "blindly" https://welcome.astrobin.com/iotd and the system works well enough most of the time but has a few glaring weaknesses as a result of the "blindness". This seems like as good a time as any to ask these questions: Is there a way to stop awarding the same image posted by the same imager in a different color palette? Is there a way to stop awarding the same imager for crops or other versions of awarded images he has already posted? Is there a way to minimize the number of awards to the same imager imaging the same object repeatedly? Is there, at least, a way to get everyone to read and practice this? https://welcome.astrobin.com/features/image-revisions |
10.79
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
I think it's well established knowledge in psychology how social networks and like-mechanisms (and even more so, if there's an explicit competition mechanism) affect our minds. In many cases it's not for the best. While there are good examples, where people start collaborating for example on creating common imaging projects, my impression is that a larger portion of people have an eye on likes and IOTDs. For example, just recently a fellow colleague explained to me that he wouldn't upload one of his images (which is a very decent one, IMHO) as he would be highly disappointed if it wouldn't catch enough likes (whatever his personal threshold is). Others have the eye on the IOTD and are drawn into the rabbit hole and gear acquisition syndrome while their dissatisfaction with their equipment and doubts on their skills grow. Personally, I would be completely happy if I could turn of all those likes, views, IOTDs and just stick with forum and global stream. The latter features get me into contact with work that I find pleasing and which allow me to find people that likely share my attitude. Björn |
4.95
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
While I would generally agree that the recognition system might benefit from some sort of tier or classification system, being contentious obfuscates the point and makes it difficult to open a productive dialogue. There are many in the remote observation category that pour their heart and soul into building and maintaining a remote observatory. It is not the exclusive domain of "rich guys". Some full-time workers spend weekends for years dragging tools, lumber, etc. to remote locations to build their observatories. And honestly, some remote observers have been the most complimentary and constructive in my own growth as a backyard astrophotographer. So when I see "robots", "push a button", or the quoted "effort" and "geniuses" used in a pejorative manner, it runs contrary to the preface of "I do not want offend anyone". The format here makes it difficult to be sympathetic to the cause. I can't imagine that the folks shuffling through all the submitted images will be either. Maybe I'm just “ideologically manipulated”. |
7.91
#...
·
·
8
likes
|
|---|
|
I agree with many points that have been made in this thread. Here are my points: 1. IOTD categories Currently images acquired with any gear go to one and the same IOTD competition. This is contrary to any other competition like in sports etc. where there are always categorizations on gear. For example, in motor sports it is the size of the engine that mainly defines different competition categories (formula 1, 2, 3 etc.). In bicycle sports like Tour de France gear is regulated like, too, as no electric motor is allowed to boost performance. If you look in any kind of competition, you will always find regulations/categorizations. But here on AB it feels as if the Ferrari 812 is competing with the Fiat Topolino. I believe that neither the Ferrari nor the Fiat like to compete with each other. So, why here? I am proposing IOTD categorization by the most obvious characteristic in astro photography i.e. the aperture. It defines how much light is collected and what resolution can be achieved. My proposal: Three categories for 1. Small, 2. Medium and 3. Large scopes. I understand that imaging location makes a huge difference, too. But it is hard to define what “backyard”, “remote” and “traveller” is and how that can be clearly defined (some people’s backyard may be darker than other people’s remote site, for example). 2 data set purchasing I see more and more users on AB purchasing data and then just process it. I do see a point for users who don’t have the capability/time etc to acquire the data themselves. But: Astro photography is more then just processing. It is often a stony and long way to acquire many hours of data. My proposal here is that users who purchase data compete in the “Image Processing” category. They could even share identical data sets they process and the competition is about who generates the best image from the same data set. And AB could even help by providing a data base with free data sets. But if the current trend continues where users buy data, then the next step is that they also buy the service of some one processing the data for them and generating a beautiful image for them (maybe that is already happening?). Eventually, one would post an image where both the data set and processing of the data set has been purchased. And they compete with those who acquire and process the data themselves. Do we want this? 3 beginners Beginners in astro photography face many challenges. Before the first image can be posted, lots of time needs to be invested in a steep learning curve. Still, a first image cannot compete for any of the awards on AB. Why not having a competition just for beginners who are 1-2 years on AB with no prior publications? That would be motivating for them and help them to improve to eventually be able to compete at the top level. 4 number of awarded images AB has “Top Pick Nomination”, “Top Pick” and “IOTD”. My perception is that the numbers of awarded images are more or less constant while submissions have grown over the years. Nowadays I see so many excellent images that do not even receive a “Top Pick Nomination”. Image quality has so much improved just over the last ~3 years when I look into catalogues of individuals. The number of awarded images should be determined by quality and not by a fixed(?) threshold, right? Anyway, I do understand that Salvatore is a one man business and cannot implement all kind of features and must prioritize. But: I have heard from so many other users on AB that they would prefer images competing for awards in several categories. I would like to see Salvatore asking all AB users if they want this ... CS, John |
|
4.95
#...
·
|
|---|
I agree with many points that have been made in this thread. Here are my points: I agree with most of what you are saying and suggesting here. However, this puts and undo burden on the volunteer evaluation team to add a bunch of categories for which to apply daily recognition. I don't have full insight into how the evaluation team's procedures, but I used to admin and do evals for a music site and the workload was daunting. I can't imagine it being less so here. Maybe shift to a weekly system for 6 or 7 categories and each day dedicated to a single category? |
|
7.91
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Ian McIntyre:I agree with many points that have been made in this thread. Here are my points: True, all that would require more volunteer work. But here are two facts: a) the number of active (meaning those who have submitted at least one image in the past 365 days) users on AB is meanwhile ~10,000. b) if you would apply for a "submitter" volunteer job, you would be told that it would take quite some time until you can start to serve because the number of willing volunteers is higher than the current number of volunteer jobs available. With that, potential volunteer work force would be available. I agree that introducing new categories could be started in a lower frequency like once per week or so. CS, John |
3.31
#...
·
|
|---|
| I am not sure about the rights or wrongs of the remote imaging debate. Needless to say, it is complex. However, I do feel that it would be a shame if the IOTD regularly becomes demoralising, rather than inspiring, for the majority of AB subscribers who are backyard Astrophotographers. |
|
7.91
#...
·
|
|---|
Richard Rice: Hello Richard, what would you propose to avoid, as you say, "the IOTD regularly becomes demoralising" ? CS, John |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
Richard Rice: For my very personal point of view, it is demoralizing, since it establishes a wrong value system. This is identical to these high glossy Vogue magazines with tons of the anorexic models. It is establishing a reference as normal which is definitely not for backyard APs. It has the same wrong effect on average APs as on women reading these magazines. I consider this trend as extremely toxic. And if it is so complex to judge the images in a fair and reasonable way / classes, I think, it is better not to do it all. |
|
3.31
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Richard Rice: Hi John. I am quite conflicted by the remote imaging debate. I can absolutely see the attraction of making use of remote observatories. I live in the UK and have been struggling to get two fully clear nights a month. That said I get a great deal of satisfaction producing images from data that has been obtained over multiple nights dodging clouds and mitigating the glow of civilisation. Even when several nights of imaging only results in a few hours of usable data which even then possibly only equates to a few minutes of SNR from a Chilean hill top. It should be an easy decision for me to sell my gear and invest in a remote setup. However, like many others the lack of a physical connection to the equipment leaves me feeling a little uneasy and I suspect would leave me unsatisfied. But ultimately it seems increasingly pointless to share my images when they are to be compared with images obtained from these incredible facilities. No one would suggest that a backyard Astrophotographer should compare their images with the Hubble space telescope. But with an ever increasing number of 50 hour plus, Bortle 1 images rolling in on a daily basis it’s starting to feel pointless to compare my images at all. As for a solution. I do not pretend to have an answer. I think perhaps their is an argument for multiple IOTD winners in different classes. But as for the classes I really do not know how best to divide them. The new and utterly fantastic equipment database does offer the opportunity for Astrobin to calculate a weighting based on equipment cost (fees). Perhaps only consider images that fully detail the equipment used and create boxing style weight classes based on setup cost. This of course has inherent problems such as differing prices in different countries, second hand purchases and so on. So a fair weighting system would need to be devised. All a great deal of work for someone. I fear that this is an issue that will rumble on for a long time to come. CS Richard |
|
7.91
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Richard Rice:Richard Rice: Dear Richard, many thanks for giving some background. I am personally not at all against remote imaging (even though that appears to be the main point of the OP who started this thread). I personally think that AB should be a place for all astro imagers no matter if they do it remote, in backyard or as traveller and from any scope size like DSLR lens to a 1+ meter astrograph. And i think that for all astro photographers no matter how much money and effort they put into the hobby, AB should be a place they enjoy and where their work is appreciated and noticed. But as some have pointed out, there seems to be a pressure telling us how we should do astro photography in future if we want to be able to compete for IOTD. @Ruediger has has brought it to the point in his post above. A system where images compete in categories is a solution, i believe. Even though i admit it is tough to come up with a fair and meaningful categorisation. But may be this forum is the place to discuss such options and can serve as input for the owner of AB to implement such categories some day ... CS, John P.S.: I am proposing a simple categorisation by aperture (see my post above) |
|
10.79
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi, I agree with @Ruediger's previous post about what the IOTD's effect is. I believe it also depends on what the goal of AB is and if the implemented mechanisms (Likes-system, image-index, IOTD etc.) rather support that or counteract it. Personally, I'm also more interested in the "average" backyard astronomy, where we don't invest 100k Euros in a single setup, or where we need to deal with seeing of 2 to 3 arcsecs and more cloudy than clear nights. I feel that any reward system will lead to a competition mechanism which is unhealthy in the end. A final note: I think it's worthwhile to make the fine distinction between pure robotic telescopes where you just buy your data and the remote sites where people send their own equipment to. I think there's a significant qualitative difference between developing and setting up your own gear as to just ordering data. Björn |
3.61
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
I have seen really poor images here that were processed from meter-scopes in Chile that have gone relatively unrecognized and unrewarded. I have also seen extremely well captured and processed images shot with basic equipment that have been recognized as IOTDs with lots of "likes". There are a few instances where I have seen images that are exceptionally well done with all sorts of equipment that somehow received no recognition, and a few instances of relatively mediocre images, (also with all sorts of equipment), that are some of the most liked and/or have received IOTD recognition. That noted, generally the results that the promoters/reviewers/judges produce seem to be pretty fair, and the statistics bear out the distribution equity. (Top-right link in IOTD banner in case you are not familiar.) No system like this is perfect, but the AB IOTD/TP process seems infinitely more equitable than so many other reward systems in human culture. (Political processes, pop-star/movie-star culture, corporate welfare...Seriously, how are the Kardashians so rich?  )Some sort of class-adjustment is seemingly unnecessary, especially where equipment expense, or even data quality, does not necessarily trump image quality. I have read the "Image Information" write-ups of several of the folks who have placed scopes in observatories Chile, and the frustrations and details that they share about getting their rigs to perform to their satisfaction is not something I envy. (In fact, the logical conclusion I have drawn for myself is that a medium aperture scope just out my back door is all I'll ever aspire to use.) Additionally, those big scopes on mountain tops are mostly limited to shooting small FOVs, leaving medium and widefield opportunities open for the artistic interpretation for lesser financially endowed folks. A big telescope often equals big problems. I want attention to be sometimes focused on the results that are attained by the best equipment placed in the best locations. I also like seeing "the little guys" kicking the asses of everyone on the platform on occasion. @Salvatore Iovene please leave the system as it is! Putting a thumb on the the scale so that everyone gets an IOTD/TP does not benefit the hobby! |
6.26
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
As someone who operates strictly from my backyard, under only moderately good skies, and has scored all of three TPNs, I do find the daily IOTDs and TPs interesting and sometimes inspirational. If on the other hand one finds the whole system irritating, one always has the option to ignore it. CS, Bob |
4.02
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| So, if people using remote systems are gonna get awards so easily, might as well process all the data from NASA, post it here and apply for IOTDs. |
11.99
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
, I do find the daily IOTDs and TPs interesting and sometimes inspirational. This hits upon what I think is the main point of these badged images - to serve as inspiration and reference to others. At least, that is how I see them: reference images for the public rather than rewards for the imager (though there is that too). Having said that - to draw inspiration from something, one has to have a reasonable expectation of being able to replicate it. A 50 hour image from a high altitude site in Chile gives me no inspiration because I have neither the inclination nor the money to replicate such an image. To me, it is, for all practical purposes , as much out of reach as an image taken by a space telescope. Of course, it can serve as inspiration for those that do have the time, money, and inclination. On the other hand, a 50 hour image from a Bortle 6 or 7 site is something that would definitely inspire me. It is something I could reasonably replicate. Most of my images are a result of inspiration from my fellow imagers who share similar conditions, not those taken from Chile. The problem is that both these images are being rated on the same scale, and simple physics confers an enormous advantage on the former image. And that means fewer images of the latter kind, statistically, are selected. This may be seen from the statistics publicly available. And that means fewer images available as reference for the majority of people that do not own remote scopes in Chile. |
5.63
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
The best images are the best images, period. I am not sure anyone is making a lot of money selling Astrophotography images so why does it matter? I make good images I think in my backyard in Portland, Oregon and the conditions suck but it is what it is. I would think 90% of people posting here are in the same situation. Why does this bother people? Spend time improving processing skills, make the best images you can in your situation, it seems silly and fruitless to try to compete with Chile images unless you can and you want to. Just Enjoy them. |
0.00
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hello everyone, So let's say that once upon a time there was a dreamer who loved to let his eyes navigate through the vastness of the nightsky and visualize of worlds beyond our own... he bought a scope and an eyepiece to catch a closer glimpse....he bought a camera to capture the scene and share that with his friends and family...He printed the photo and hung it on the wall...made a package of it and sent it as a christmas gift....as a birthday gift.... There are so many ways that a hobby can offer fulfillness and is that what matters in the end. Every person may chase different goals and perceive that fulfillness in different ways...who has the right to blame that. ASTROBIN is just another place where astronomers/astrophotographers can seek fulfillness through this hobby, not perfect but definitely the only one that has managed to bring together so many likeminded people. My personal suggestion is not to take it too personally and not to focus on what others do rather than seek your own peace through this hobby and if you can't get it here just look for other ways. Clear skies!! |
