3.81
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Hey, I think that the recent changes regarding the iodt rules are fine except for one thing. Submitting an image that you already submitted in the past is forbidden. This applies also in the event in which you completely re-processed the image, or you added data to it. Only brand new data may be submitted again as a new image for IOTD/TP consideration. Crops, re-processed data, minor additions of data, and mosaic panels should be uploaded as image revisions. However, if you added a significant amount of data (or data with vastly better equipment), the image may be submitted anew. I don't understand why it isn't allowed to submit mosaic panels to iodt. if I look at my recent mosaic project even one panel has more work and exposure time in it than 90% of the pictures on astrobin and I am surely not alone. for some mosaics you will need a year or two, sometimes longer to collect all the data.. I am working with an overlap of 20% and my panels have a resolution of 26mp, that really should qualify them as pictures that can count as iodt candidates for themselves. if you want to make your iodt process better you should instead think of removing all image date like camera, exposure time, mount, scope, astrophotographer, so that the team members of iodt process can only judge the picture itself. maybe that's already the case, no idea. cs Andreas |
 #...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Andi: You may submit individual mosaic panels, but then you may not submit the whole mosaic. Or if you want to submit the whole mosaic, then you may not submit individual panels. This to minimize "playing the system" to increase one's chances, and falls under the rule about not submitting data already submitted in the past (we don't want the IOTD/TP to become a "repost" mess). Andi: The images are anonymized (the photographers are not shown) but the equipment is. In principle I agree that images should be judged solely on their merits, but I caved in to pressure by the team wanting a little bit of context (the equipment used). I can't recall the motivations anymore, but at the time I was persuaded. |
|
3.81
#...
·
|
|---|
| thank you for your answer Salvatore. it is really only my opinion but as said I am not happy with that decision. I am not here for iodt but as it is a part of this site I am feeling that it can't be ok that I need to decide wether I submit an 30h panel or a 150h mosaic while at the same time thousands of people are allowed to get the exactly same data from a professional telescope like Hubble or a professional telescope service and submit it with only marginal differences in processing. as ai progresses this data will look more and more the same anyway. |
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Andi: The key is that you may not submit data previously submitted by you, not "by anyone". Technically speaking, anyway, mosaic panels should be posted as revisions anyway, because you'd be misrepresenting your total and average integration time. It's not a metric that matters a lot, but it's a pity to misrepresent it, because that renders useless. If you post a picture of M81 (10 hours), then a picture of M82 (another 10 hours), and then post, separately, a mosaic and log 20 hours, that's 20 additional hours that are not real. But I'm digressing. The idea is simply to prevent reposts and flooding the queues with panels and mosaics just to increase one's chances. If you know you're making a mosaic, then please hold on submission until your project is finished. |
|
3.81
#...
·
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene:Andi: The idea is fine but i fear the execution is stupid. I mean i and most others aren’t even able to post all the panels as an revision, only premium users are able to post an big enough amount. The big file size of mosacis is another problem, with that rule only premiums users are able to present their work in the best way possible. Being forced to only upload one picture for submission most people will not be able to display their work in the best resolution, best file type etc. that way mosaics are somewhat rendered useless i could just use a wider scope from the beginning, i can’t display the resolution gain from bigger scopes anyway and displaying it in an own submission is forbidden now. |
1.51
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I think somewhat differently. Instead of judging images blindly, why not do the opposite and have categories. I always thought it unfair that many of the APODs today are from remote observatories that house 100K in equipment (or more) . . . and these images are competing against the backyard astronomer using a $500 telescope mounted on a 1K mount. Why not have general categories broken out by equipment level (beginner, intermediate, expert). The same can be done with amount of data Aquisition, with categories for 1hr to 12hrs . . . 12.1hrs to 24hrs . . . 24.1hrs to 48hrs . . . >48hrs. Then you'd be comparing apples to apples. Otherwise, the guy with the best, most expensive toys always win. Ever ask yourself how the Yankees have been able to win so many pennants? |
#...
·
|
|---|
|
This is partly covered in the faq: https://welcome.astrobin.com/iotd#faq In addition to that, cost of equipment is not everything. Cheap equipment from an excellent location is very likely to outperform very expensive equipment from a very poor location. |
|
1.51
#...
·
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene: Agreed, there could be Bortle categories as well, but I guess where would the categories end? Maybe the system in place is a better idea after all. |
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Tommy Mastro: That's what I've been saying for the past 10 years :-) I get this question (IOTD categories) so much, but when you start thinking about it, there is just no way to implement it, if you want to have a single image of the day. What you want, rather than categories on the IOTD, is constrained context where the customization is total. Then you can say "I want a context for images acquired with equipment between $1000 and $2000" and that's fine because it's an ad-hoc context. |
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
| ...so I have to manually submit images for consideration now because I have never received so much as a TP nomination? For someone who has supported astrobin for almost 10 years now, this feels like a slap in the face. I accept that the fruits of 10 years of astrophotography skill progression has not got my images to a point where they are deemed to be of a level worth even a small note of recognition by the judges but why would astrobin make it even harder for me to have them considered? |
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Michael, sorry you feel slapped in the face but are you submitting images so frequently that clicking one menu entry is compounding to be too much work? I appreciate your support over so many years but please understand that for everything I do, there will be X people who benefit from it and Y people who don't. Allowing automatic submission to people who don't have a track record of receiving a Top Pick of IOTD means that the staff queues are flooded with images by beginners. This makes it more difficult to give images the time they deserve for consideration and I don't suppose this can be argued against. I hope you will accept this minor inconvenience for the greater good. Thanks! Salvatore |
|
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene:Tommy Mastro: Yes, I see your point and agree. I didn't really think it through. It would be impossible to manage. On another note, the automatic submission option is probably killing you guys. I had it on for a while until I realized it was submitting all of my images - even my really poor ones. So I turned it off and now only submit ones I feel particularly proud of for one reason or another. Sorry if I was inundating some email boxes for a while there. |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Thank you for the reply Salvatore, I figured that the change was made to ease the workload of the judges who kindly volunteer their time to keep astrobin a great place. I 100% understand and support this reasoning. That said, for astrobin to filter my images out with people new to the hobby is frustrating and not giving due respect to those of us who have been supporters here for a decade. Perhaps a better policy would have been to include longevity on astrobin. 5+ years on this site and/or 50+ images for example. Michael |
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Hi Michael, I'm not saying it's your case of course, but seniority as a member of the website does not guarantee that one's image will all be a match for the IOTD/TP process. Keep submitting images and I'm sure a TP will find your way to you soon! Salvatore |
|
1.51
#...
·
|
|---|
|
My suggestion for Astrobin is to mandate Judges to provide feedback on all images they view. So, if they reject an image at any point along the process, they provide a one or two sentence feedback, such as . . . "a strong image but I found the sharpening to be a little over done". Likewise, if a judge pushes an image along, then why . . .""I am really impressed by the framing you chose for this target. A unique perspective". And please don't give the lame excuse this would be too time-consuming. Writing one or two sentences would take less time than they take to view the image in the first place. Moreover, this would be so beneficial for everyone on Astrobin! I for sure am in dire need of constructive criticism. I am convincing my M51 image blew away the last IOTD winner (on the same target), yet not one judge nominated my image. I would love to know why. Not only will this make us all better astrophotographers, but it would also provide an insight into the judges' thoughts. the entire process would become more transparent, and therefore more legitimate. As a result, we would undoubtedly see a lot less complaining about how "unfair" the IOTD process is. |
