4.44
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
As one who has posted images taken from my Bortle 6 backyard using 3 different kinds of equipment, traveled by carrying my portable setup on planes to remote sites in CO and VA to do on site imaging at high altitude in bitter cold, as well as collaborated with my mentor and friend in Chile who personally acquires his own data on his own large scopes with tremendous skill and effort I would like to offer my thoughts and insights here. My backyard and remotely acquired images using my 92mm and 330mm scopes at home have been recognized and won awards., as have the data I processed from remote scopes in Chile. I do think that the awards system does acknowledge all kinds of images from nightscapes using DSLR's, small portable rigs as well as 1m scopes in Chile or SRO. Maintaining and running scopes at high focal length which also use derotation on incredibly complicated Planewave CDK 700mm or 1m scopes takes immense amounts of skill and dedication and the expertise required to acquire the quality of data that results in high quality images is not trivial. Debugging a rig of that scale if something goes wrong, which often does is difficult especially remotely. Collimating a 14 inch reflector is not easy, imagine the challenges with a 1m or 700mm! An award to such an image is as much for the skill of the acquisition as the processing. Processing data at such scale and resolution is also quite a learning curve, at least for me! I love my own data acquired in my light polluted backyard and the satisfaction of processing my own data is unbeatable, but also respect the effort it takes to acquire remote data, which is a different skill. In the end, I think the processing skill is what really counts in the end, regardless of the focal length or pixel scale. I love a well processed and superb wide field views of a Redcat51 as much as a deep dive into a rare small galaxy. |
11.99
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
gmadkat: So a couple of things. There is the notion that operating a remote site is "pressing a button". Having seen videos and write ups by people like John Hayes, and having watched my friends build observatories, it requires thought, skill, dedication, and money. I respect the passion that people who build and operate these observatories have. The data that they generate should be enjoyed and recognized. I have no issue with this. But that is not how most of us do astrophotography. The very vast majority of us are setting up rigs in our backyards, and occasionally driving to dark sites. The IOTD stats show that it is six to seven times easier for an image taken from a remote site to win a TP or IOTD than a backyard image. As the number (not proportion) of remote sites increases, it will become even more skewed. If the goal is simply to recognize the best images, regardless of source, then I think we have no problem. There is no adjustment needed. But if we also want to have a mechanism, perhaps a different or complementary one, to recognize the type of images most people take on a regular basis, if we want to provide them images that they can reasonably aspire to, then the IOTD isn't doing that. I also want to contest the notion that the processing skill is what counts in the end. No amount of processing skill can cover the difference between Bortle 1/2 and Bortle 6. I say this from the perspective of someone that has worked with data taken from remote sites like Kitt Peak as well as my own backyard with a variety of scopes. Were it a matter of processing skill, why bother to spend $100K+ to set up a remote site? Today's IOTD is an exceptional image - but is it realistic to say it could be produced from a Bortle 7 backyard through mere application of enough processing skill? I'll end on one note. One of the best processors I know produced an 80 hour plus backyard image this summer. It didn't even make TPN. I think there is something broken with a system that allows that to happen. |
7.90
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Whilst I'm passing by... Why not make the whole enterprise purely random on the background of a modicum of skill? Fair chance for everyone, the chap with the tiny refractor on top of the chicken coop as well as the billionaire with an 8mt thingy on Manua Kea. How about that. Make a 1-week rolling window, compute the distribution of likes across all submitted entries and anyone, say, within the top 10% percentile is entered in the competition and randomly selected. No judges, no submitters and no faff. Everyone's happy. |
18.93
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Arun H: I second to Arun. 1. If we just want to see the most beautiful images, then AB is not required at all. NASA has already nice pictures there (probably the nicest). Then the IOTD is not required at all. 2. Processing surely requires skills, but can be learned without any AP knowledge. I have seen that with my own eyes. An average skilled person with some profound image processing know-how can easily achieve very good results. I have watched a local artist doing this. She developed an image in minutes almost perfectly without any background knowledge. The tools we use are very well known under professional who DTP or other photography. It is a complete myth you need AP knowledge to create nice pictures, especially when we look at the trend for artistic images in IOTD. 3. I consider the acquisition part as the most complex part, where you need time, money and knowledge which is unique to AP. Moreover very elaborate tools make it easier every day to achieve very good results without extensive knowledge, which I think is basically a good thing. It gives us time to focus on the essential: Doing astronomy and photography. |
|
4.44
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Arun H: I agree with all of the above, @Arun H , you make excellent points. My original intent was to acknowledge the effort that goes into remote observatories and setup. Valid points on the majority of us who do the setup ourselves and I am among them as well and an award for my own acquisition is a pride of ownership of the process from end to end! So yes, I agree with you on that a mechanism to recognize self acquired non remote more proportionately would be good to have. You make a fair point that the skies and resolution in the end do matter and processing skill alone cannot compensate. I find it tragic that the 80 hour plus backyard image got sadly overlooked by the process. I do know that a lot of this is being addressed in the improvements to the IOTD process and I do hope something like this would never happen again. |
9.24
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I'm not even sure where to start here. I have no intent of reading the replies but this could be the absolute dumbest and most ignorant post I've seen on here. I don't apologize for being blunt. I image from my backyard, dump anywhere from 20-50 hours on my projects currently, and I firmly believe I have the same opportunity to earn IOTD as many other folks. Remote observatories offer better seeing and better weather, but they don't make you a good processor. That takes time, patience and practice, lots of practice. I spent alot of time practicing, learning techniques from other astrophotographers, and asking for help. I'd like to believe I'm doing well. Whats your excuse? |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Brian Puhl: I'm sorry, I don't apologize for being blunt, either. It is the kind of toxicity shown in some of these responses that makes me want to quit Astrobin. The implication in a post like this is that, if you are not earning one of these badges, you are somehow failing and have to supply an excuse. No one here needs to defend the results they are getting, one way or the other. Nobody needs to supply an "excuse" for their work - to anybody. This is a hobby. It is meant to be fun. The social aspect of this is killing it for me - and a lot of people. |
|
9.24
#...
·
|
|---|
Arun H:Brian Puhl: To be fair, there is a large skill gap in this hobby. You, have a very respectable gallery. Our OP here, has been uploading for many years and still seems to lack some of the basics of processing. And his response to the folks that have been working hard for equally as long if not longer, and may be able to afford better equipment... Is that they are all robots?! These are folks that have earned their respect among the community. They are people just the same. To say that they don't derserve to be recognized because person B can't improve their techniques is like giving participation trophies. Don't get me wrong here, I am not a toxic person, but there is a major disconnect here somewhere between OP and reality. |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Brian Puhl: Sorry, also being blunt: Quote " I have not intent to reading the answers...", but asking others for their excuse? I have never heard, that someone has to excuse himself for having an opinion and articulating it, as long as he is not offending anyone. That is called freedom of speech. There is no reason why someone has to justify his opinion! I consider such awful comments also as extremely toxic and makes me want to leave AB too. It seams that the (discussion) culture is obviously deteriorating here too - like many places and also daily life. |
|
9.24
#...
·
|
|---|
Ruediger:Brian Puhl: The reason for the abrasiveness is OP could have simply asked.... "Why am I not getting IOTD's, or top picks?" "What could I do to improve my chances" Instead he starts out slamming the folks that worked their behinds off. Adding to it he opens up with "I don't want to offend anyone here" which clearly implies he knows he's going to, and continues on that we're "“ideologically manipulated” in the Marxist/Spinozist sense". This post is not an opinion, it's a verbal attack against IOTD winners and apparently anyone that agrees with them. The IOTD process isn't perfect. I'm not going to defend it, but to take this on in the way he's opened this thread is just beyond me. edit: I just don't understand this all. And if I'm the bad guy for calling him out, then so be it. I'm just annoyed by the constant complaints on these forums about people not getting IOTD's and blaming the process. |
4.02
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Guys, just chill. I had a bright idea last night. Imagine an IOTD for remote imagers and an IOTD for normal astrophotographers (2 IOTDs for the same day)? That sounds good to me, although it would require the judges to work more, so I don't know. Remember it's just my own idea, you can ignore me completely, I don't desire fights or anything. |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Brian Puhl:Ruediger:Brian Puhl: Sorry, but you missed almost all points - maybe due to not reading all. In this threat are may references to other threats dealing with the same topic. It is complex and needs some time to dig into in order to have a qualified opinion in either way. And a humble recommendation: If you "just don't understand this all" it may be a better approach to politely participate in the discussion and ask for clarification, or read the arguments given before, but please, do not ask for someones excuse - which absolutely nobody owes to anybody what ever opinion he has. |
|
18.93
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Guys, just chill. I had a bright idea last night. Imagine an IOTD for remote imagers and an IOTD for normal astrophotographers (2 IOTDs for the same day)? That sounds good to me, although it would require the judges to work more, so I don't know. I am supporting this idea too (others do too), but this ideas was not very much in favor with Salvatore. We had exchanged many arguments in the other thread dealing with this idea. Currently we have two parties. One is for categories, another strictly against. But in the end it is only Salvatore's decisions. It is his site, his business and his income. |
|
9.24
#...
·
|
|---|
Ruediger:Brian Puhl:Ruediger:Brian Puhl: The topic in general is a dead horse. I think we can all agree on that. IOTD has been beaten to death lately. I have read all the replying comments, and they are on topic and respectable. I knew I wouldn't have any issue there. My issue is with op. Inappropriately calling out folks when he failed and gave up. I'm going to drop it here as apparently I've stirred a hornets nest of folks that disagree with me. That was never my intent, and if you find my statements offensive, I apologize. I still stand behind my statements either way. |
7.67
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I have a top pick from a remote site, and I have one from my B8 backyard (broadband no less). Suffice to say if you play your cards right you will always have a shot at getting an award here. In my opinion, data provides a floor in terms of quality but it does not set the ceiling. It is true that good data is needed for a good image. However, good data can be destroyed by poor processing abilities. So, at the end of the day you need to have good processing. In an old thread I did the math once, and to be frank the idea that remote images are taking over was unfounded. I can also tell you as a volunteer that remote images are not valued higher than any other ones. Many a remote image, or images produced with expensive equipment fail to get promoted or are outright dismissed because of how poor the final product is. Meanwhile you have people out there creating great images with comparatively cheap gear. I also do have to confess that over the years it does seem like those who complain about not getting awards usually have images that are not processed as good as they could be. I think we have to be honest with ourselves sometimes about our own skill level. That is a better path forward than trying to blame remote images. Now that we can see how many votes our images get, I can see that a lot of my early work was dismissed outright. I would encourage people to check their own images to see as well. If you see a lot of dismissals on your images like I have, hopefully the conclusion would be that said images were judged sub-par by the community and that you should seek out constructive ways to improve your images instead of just cranking out the same quality time after time and wondering why you are not getting any awards. |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
In an old thread I did the math once, and to be frank the idea that remote images are taking over was unfounded. Hmmm... I'd have to disagree with that one, now that the IOTD stats are public: Approximately 68% of the total images submitted on AB were taken from backyards and accounted for 37% of TPs 8.86% of images were taken from remote sites and accounted for 32% of TPs I don't know how you can look at a statistic that shows that it takes 7 times the number of backyard images to generate roughly the same number of badged images and make a statement that remote images are not overweighted. Now, some of this can certainly be explained by a difference in skill level. Someone with skill (and money) is more likely to set up a remote site. But for us experienced imagers to dismiss the advantage, supported by mathematics and physics, that dark, clear, good seeing sites confer an SNR advantage seems rather naive. But otherwise, yes, one must constantly seek to improve. And this was my point. The ceiling for images taken from remote sites is different, and higher, than that of places people typically image from. And that has to be accounted for, if one wishes these these badged images to serve as reasonable examples for people to aspire to take. If I own a Toyota Corolla and drive on a crowded city street, I might be legitimately upset if people blame my driving skills for not getting the same 0-60 time as someone driving a Ferrari on a racetrack. |
|
7.67
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Arun H:In an old thread I did the math once, and to be frank the idea that remote images are taking over was unfounded. I think its fair to say that remote imaging data is better, but I would argue that poor data from backyard images is squarely their fault. If they have walking noise, poor stars, or other issues that is on them. This is where I will concede that remote images might have an advantage, but even they have to square that stuff away on their remote rigs. If your backyard setup is well thought out, you can easily compete with remote images for awards.  This is best displayed with images that already became top picks nominations, because that establishes at least some kind of baseline for data quality. We can see that while remote images have an advantage for advancing to Top Picks, its not anything crazy. The percentages listed on the graphs are the percentage of images that advanced from that category.  And that advantage lessens as the process goes on. All data categories have an almost equal chance of becoming Images of the Day. This data was for images from January 2021 to January 2022 before the IotD system was made optional. So this idea that you somehow have a massive advantage by going remove is unfounded to me. If you are shooting from your backyard, it is up to you to ensure that the data is good. |
5.63
#...
·
|
|---|
Arun H: I come from the world of Landscape and bird photography and your analogy is more like a Landscape photographer who lives in Kansas and can't leave Kansas complaining that his images should get the same looks and credit as the Photographers who go to the Grand Canyon. Or the Bird photographer who can't go to Costa Rica but thinks the Sparrow photos in his backyard should be judged as equal to the ones from Costa Rica.. I just do not see how that would ever work? Photographic images have to be judged on their merit regardless of where they were taken. |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
This is best displayed with images that already became top picks nominations, because that establishes at least some kind of baseline for data quality. We can see that while remote images have an advantage for advancing to Top Picks, its not anything crazy. The percentages listed on the graphs are the percentage of images that advanced from that category. Well, yes, when you apply a filter on backyard images, then you have a set of similar quality images that you are starting from! The question is how many backyard images it takes to get past that filter. It is hardly a fair comparison to start with TPNs. I once calculated that even the difference between even a Bortle 4 and 1 is a 4x difference in imaging time for the same SNR. If indeed this was simply a matter of a well thought out backyard setup, why are very experienced imagers setting up rigs in Chile? After all, the expense is not inconsiderable - $100K+! Hopefully they are not doing it simply to keep the economy going  |
7.91
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
I have a top pick from a remote site, and I have one from my B8 backyard (broadband no less). Suffice to say if you play your cards right you will always have a shot at getting an award here. Hi @SemiPro just a few comments on your statements: SemiPro said: “ … In an old thread I did the math once, and to be frank the idea that remote images are taking over was unfounded. …” Really? Here are the most recent statistics (just click IOTD from today at the small statistics icon): Simple math comparing the “Backyard’ with the “Own remote observatory” tells: (67.91 / 8.86 ) * (41.64 / 34.79) = 9.17 In words: It is 9.17 times more likely to receive IOTD when imaging from remote compared to Backyard. I call this: Imbalanced. SemiPro said: “ … data provides a floor in terms of quality but it does not set the ceiling …” True. And it means that Backyarders start with a handycap as the “floor” is far lower with lower SNR data. So, what can be done to make up for the lower SNR due to light polluted backyards? a) Backyarder needs to have far better processing skills in order to get an image of same quality (assuming same integration time) b) Backyarder needs to add far more integration time like 2x, 4x or 8x to start with same data quality (assuming that processing skills are equal) a) is somewhat unrealistic and b) puts a disadvantage on Backyarders. SemiPro said: “ … I would encourage people to check their own images to see as well. If you see a lot of dismissals on your images like …” I would not recommend doing this now. Why? Because as recently has been found, there where a considerate number of volunteers in the IOTD process who repeatedly dismissed images for no apparent reason (even those that later on became TP or IOTD). The problem has been addressed and hopefully that will improve in future ... |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Dan Kearl: I dont recall where I said this. What I said was: " The ceiling for images taken from remote sites is different, and higher, than that of places people typically image from. And that has to be accounted for, if one wishes these these badged images to serve as reasonable examples for people to aspire to take" and "If the goal is simply to recognize the best images, regardless of source, then I think we have no problem. There is no adjustment needed. But if we also want to have a mechanism, perhaps a different or complementary one, to recognize the type of images most people take on a regular basis, if we want to provide them images that they can reasonably aspire to, then the IOTD isn't doing that." and "I respect the passion that people who build and operate these observatories have. The data that they generate should be enjoyed and recognized. I have no issue with this." So it helps to ask the right question. Are we happy with just a system that recognizes the best images, blindly? If so, there is no issue with the IOTD as it stands. But I also hear people saying it is the fault of processing that people from their backyards cannot generate IOTD quality images. Processing can only get you so far - otherwise, why would anyone take the trouble to set up a rig at a remote site spending $100K+? |
|
7.67
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Arun H:This is best displayed with images that already became top picks nominations, because that establishes at least some kind of baseline for data quality. We can see that while remote images have an advantage for advancing to Top Picks, its not anything crazy. The percentages listed on the graphs are the percentage of images that advanced from that category. I do think its fair, because by starting with top pick nominations, we are starting with what I would consider data that is free from a lot common technical flaws irrespective of bortle level. We are establishing a controlled variable as best we can. Not all backyard data is created the same, but that is the fault of the user and not the sky. Now, what I am saying is you are not going to get a Hubble quality image in your backyard, but you can get an image that has good stars, good SNR, and free from optical faults. As a poor sap stuck in the middle of the city I can attest that while it is a disadvantage, quality astro can still be done from skies that are not the greatest. I have a top pick from a remote site, and I have one from my B8 backyard (broadband no less). Suffice to say if you play your cards right you will always have a shot at getting an award here. In terms of stats, I think mine paints a more accurate picture. I think the implication that you are going with (and feel free to correct me) is that just by virtue of being remote, that picture has a better shot of being awarded, or that backyard pictures are being unfairly pushed aside. The problem is - as I have stated - is that we are trying to lump all the backyard folks together, where someone who doesn't really know what they are doing is given the same weight as someone that does. The reason why backyarders tend to have poor stats compared to remote images is mostly of their own design. They don't dither. They don't take calibration frames. They don't adjust for tilt and backfocus. They don't have a proper integration time. Those are just a few of the steps they could be forgetting. Having remote data does not suddenly make you a better processor. If you gave someone quality backyard data and quality remote data, they would produce similar quality images from both data sets. These images could be great or they could be trash. Its the processing skill that matters. If there is any unfairness to be found, it is that the backyarder has to put more effort into acquiring their data. I am not trying to be purposefully ignorant here. The amount of money someones spends can be a great help to their image. If you rent a telescope or buy a dataset you do not have to grapple with many of the data acquisitions challenges of this hobby. So to that extent I can understand some of the frustrations. Yet, at the end of the day I am arguing that these challenges are not insurmountable, and are actually readily achievable with some effort. |
|
7.91
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
And that advantage lessens as the process goes on. All data categories have an almost equal chance of becoming Images of the Day. Hello @SemiPro your statement is WRONG! You show absolute numbers and you neglect the fact that far more images are submitted by "backyard" category (67.91% compared to only 8.86% of "own remote"). Here is the correct calculation (without fancy graph): (67.91 / 8.86 ) * (41.64 / 34.79) = 9.17 A correct statement: *** It is 9.17 times more likely to receive IOTD when imaging from "own remote" compared to "backyard". *** |
|
4.02
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
The first time I see a guy a with a golden title disprove what another guy with a golden title is saying |
|
7.67
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
And that advantage lessens as the process goes on. All data categories have an almost equal chance of becoming Images of the Day. I can see where you are coming from, but just because an image is submitted it does not speak towards the quality of the underlying data. What I am trying to do is control for that. I can take a picture of Orion, right now, with my Iphone, upload it to astrobin and submit it to the IotD, and it will count as as backyard image. Should we really be surprised that backyard images do not do well in comparison to remote images with this in mind? I am trying to point out that backyard images buoyed by quality data have just as good of a chance to succeed as remote data. I am also saying that getting quality data from a backyard is readily achievable. Your data is in absolutes, while I am trying to control for the underlying quality of the acquired data. In that respect I believe that is why my data paints a different picture. My method is by no means perfect, but I think it is better than dealing with absolutes. |
67.91 / 8.86 ) * (41.64 / 34.79) = 9.17 