Kyle Goodwin:
There are certainly targets where it would be borderline impossible to achieve a good result from highly light polluted places or places with terrible seeing, but if you're flexible in terms of your targets selection there are definitely things you can do to adapt to your location and achieve great results. If you have low/moderate light pollution, but poor seeing, you might want to try wide field, for example, and enjoy any of the wondrous very large targets which don't require high resolution to be extremely good. If you have quite a bit of light pollution, but seeing is average to better, you might try long focal length on planetary nebulae, most of which are fairly bright, narrowband targets, and the small field makes the gradients from light pollution less difficult to deal with. None of this will make any difference, though, if someone takes a few generic images of popular targets from a mediocre location, processes them poorly, and then gives up because they blame the conditions without learning to process and learning what they can do to mitigate the conditions they have.
Usually the reason why people who image under good conditions have, and share, the opinion that processing is more important or at least that more time/attention should be spent on processing is that they've experienced it in their own work and know how much of a difference it makes, even if it obviously can't turn downtown Cleveland under the jet stream into the dark Sierra Nevadas. Hi Kyle - I think without question people work within the limitations of what they can achieve. As an example, I do a lot more narrowband than I like because that's what my conditions here allow. But please understand - light pollution and lack of clear sky time are very real limitations. To give you one example - to get a good image of WR134 took me a whole summer two years ago between smoke and clouds. Imaging during the winter is something I have completely given up on - too many clouds. Any kind of broadband is like playing the lottery - starting a project has a good chance that I will end up unhappy with the result because the intersection of No Moon, No clouds, and No smoke is quite often a nullset. I really don't think people who haven't experienced this get the importance of things they take for granted. People that have experienced it and still want to continue end up going remote. As for processing - of course it is important. Good processing will always help you extract more from your data. But good data is far more important. And good data comes from integration time and, especially for broadband, lack of light pollution. My perspective is this: if you are looking to processing to correct deficiencies in your data, you are no longer fighting a battle to get to a good image. You are simply negotiating the terms of surrender.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Arun H:
Kyle Goodwin:
There are certainly targets where it would be borderline impossible to achieve a good result from highly light polluted places or places with terrible seeing, but if you're flexible in terms of your targets selection there are definitely things you can do to adapt to your location and achieve great results. If you have low/moderate light pollution, but poor seeing, you might want to try wide field, for example, and enjoy any of the wondrous very large targets which don't require high resolution to be extremely good. If you have quite a bit of light pollution, but seeing is average to better, you might try long focal length on planetary nebulae, most of which are fairly bright, narrowband targets, and the small field makes the gradients from light pollution less difficult to deal with. None of this will make any difference, though, if someone takes a few generic images of popular targets from a mediocre location, processes them poorly, and then gives up because they blame the conditions without learning to process and learning what they can do to mitigate the conditions they have.
Usually the reason why people who image under good conditions have, and share, the opinion that processing is more important or at least that more time/attention should be spent on processing is that they've experienced it in their own work and know how much of a difference it makes, even if it obviously can't turn downtown Cleveland under the jet stream into the dark Sierra Nevadas.
Hi Kyle - I think without question people work within the limitations of what they can achieve. As an example, I do a lot more narrowband than I like because that's what my conditions here allow. But please understand - light pollution and lack of clear sky time are very real limitations. To give you one example - to get a good image of WR134 took me a whole summer two years ago between smoke and clouds. Imaging during the winter is something I have completely given up on - too many clouds. Any kind of broadband is like playing the lottery - starting a project has a good chance that I will end up unhappy with the result because the intersection of No Moon, No clouds, and No smoke is quite often a nullset. I really don't think people who haven't experienced this get the importance of things they take for granted. People that have experienced it and still want to continue end up going remote.
As for processing - of course it is important. Good processing will always help you extract more from your data. But good data is far more important. And good data comes from integration time and, especially for broadband, lack of light pollution. My perspective is this: if you are looking to processing to correct deficiencies in your data, you are no longer fighting a battle to get to a good image. You are simply negotiating the terms of surrender. I don't disagree with you on anything you said there. I image "remote" but that just means I built an observatory 2.5 hours drive away because the light pollution is simply too bad in Metro Atlanta. I still deal with the same very fickle weather, it's even closer to sea level, doesn't have a lot of clear nights, and the seeing is maybe slightly above average, but certainly nothing to brag about. I don't have someone there to manage my system, which means if anything goes wrong I'm in for a lot of driving. Of course I invested heavily in things that prevent my having to drive there, but there's always another thing that can go wrong. Pollen effectively closes me for most of the spring. We get lots of smoke, too, I didn't realize it would be causing an issue all the way on the east coast from fires out west and in Canada, but it does and I lost about a month and a half last fall to it. Good data is very important and conditions will dictate how much good data you can reasonably get. Maybe that answer is none from some locations, but most places the answer is at least some on some targets. It's up to the imager to decide to dedicate that time to produce one very good image rather than 5 or 6 subpar ones because they want to finish an image in a night or a weekend and then process it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Arun H:
Salvatore Iovene:
Monty Chandler:
It's a nice image, but backyard astro-photographers rarely get the nod. History shows they appear to prefer the bought images.
This is demonstrably false tho.
Hi Sal,
You should share the full data which also includes total submitted. When you do this, you see that backyard is underrepresented as a proportion of submitted. Of course, there are very good reasons for this. People travel or set up remote sites because what can be done from most backyards is limited, especially for L/RGB. My only point here is that if you only share part of the data, people will start to question why. I don't think there is any conspiracy here. Submiters, judges, promoters etc. are all just doing their job. Which is to select, in their view, the best images, regardless of source. FWIW, if I could afford to go remote, I would too. It is just a fact of this effort.
 Very interesting but not surprising! Two or three categories for entries might even things out BUT it would probably also drive the submitters and reviewers crazy ! Not to mention the near impossible task of defining categories (Bortle/Seeing? Backyard/Remote? Cost of Rig? Etc.. Etc. ..)
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Arun H:
Salvatore Iovene:
Monty Chandler:
It's a nice image, but backyard astro-photographers rarely get the nod. History shows they appear to prefer the bought images.
This is demonstrably false tho.
Hi Sal,
You should share the full data which also includes total submitted. When you do this, you see that backyard is underrepresented as a proportion of submitted. Of course, there are very good reasons for this. People travel or set up remote sites because what can be done from most backyards is limited, especially for L/RGB. My only point here is that if you only share part of the data, people will start to question why. I don't think there is any conspiracy here. Submiters, judges, promoters etc. are all just doing their job. Which is to select, in their view, the best images, regardless of source. FWIW, if I could afford to go remote, I would too. It is just a fact of this effort.
Very interesting but not surprising!
Two or three categories for entries might even things out BUT it would probably also drive the submitters and reviewers crazy ! Not to mention the near impossible task of defining categories (Bortle/Seeing? Backyard/Remote? Cost of Rig? Etc.. Etc. ..)
They talk about why they don't do that in the same page about the system. The goal isn't a "weight class" system where you're rewarded for doing your best under the conditions you have. You could never enforce categories even if you could come up with them. People could say the image was taken from anywhere and there'd be no way to prove otherwise. The system is to recognize outstanding images, regardless of equipment, regardless of where they were taken, etc.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I would suggest taking a look at John Hayes or Wolfgang Promper's galleries and then deciding how many of those images, particularly the LRGB ones, can be taken from your typical backyard. Careful Arun! Look more carefully through my gallery and you'll see that my images come from Chile, N. New Mexico, AND my backyard. These are two examples of images that I took from Central Oregon with my 20": https://www.astrobin.com/dhogsm/D/https://www.astrobin.com/hmcdyt/E/Here's one that I took from Central Oregon (backyard) with my C14 that won an APOD https://www.astrobin.com/256348/E/?nc=&nce=Here's are images I took from Central Oregon (backyard) with my C14 that won IOTD awards https://www.astrobin.com/297820/?nc=&nce=https://www.astrobin.com/258306/E/?nc=&nce=https://www.astrobin.com/253596/B/?nc=&nce=https://www.astrobin.com/257403/D/?nc=&nce=https://www.astrobin.com/247263/D/?nc=&nce=https://www.astrobin.com/244800/H/?nc=&nce=I've produced a lot more respectable images with my less expensive gear from my backyard in Oregon than I have with my uber-expensive rig that's currently in Chile! Still, I think that my processing skills have steadily improved over the years so my more recent photos taken from Chile are certainly better than my earlier photos. John
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
The bottom line is that if you are happy with your image, and you feel that you've put a lot of hard work into it, then it's a good image … It's easy to fall into the "trap" of looking towards others to authenticate what you're doing (especially when they are volunteers; each with their own taste). Don't worry about, it, enjoy the vocation, and gauge your own progress.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Bill McLaughlin:
IMHO if one's goal is Top Pick and such, one should avoid common objects. Most here seem to agree that is the most common reason (other than just bad quality) for a lack of awards.
But I have to wonder if one's primary goal should be Top Pick and such.
My personal approach is to do a few common objects but mostly less common objects. This is not to get awards but simply because, having imaged for over 30 years, I have done most of the common objects at some point and find the less common ones more interesting and often more challenging. That might gain me a few more awards but that is really just a nice side effect of finally getting around to imaging the lesser known objects.
The bottom line for me is that imaging fewer common objects is really more a matter of "been there, done that" than anything else.  My personal answer to the highlighted question is no, never do that. One should image hard, practice hard, learn hard, and interact with others (to learn and to share). One should not let this IOTD thing or anything alike to dictate their goal or define their style. Many have noticed that the system here tends to award rare objects. This is understandable, since we all like to see new things. But can there also be something new in famous old objects? There can always be. If all somewhat experienced people only chase after rarely imaged objects, we will never see new features revealed from those "boring" famous objects. We won't see new styles developed. That will be kind of sad. And to OP, very impressive tail. Keep the good job. Don't let the IOTD thing frustrate you.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
let's look at this image and enjoy it together  "All we ever see of stars are their old photographs." Alan MooreCS Brian
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
John Hayes:
I've produced a lot more respectable images with my less expensive gear from my backyard in Oregon than I have with my uber-expensive rig that's currently in Chile! Still, I think that my processing skills have steadily improved over the years so my more recent photos taken from Chile are certainly better than my earlier photos. I have a huge amount of respect for you, John, and I think you've earned more awards than you've received! And I know how much work you've put in to your scopes at Chile, so it isn't as simple as just spending money. My only point is - even you realized that there is a benefit to going to Chile. Which costs money. And of course, images that would have won awards in 2016 or even 2021 would not do so today or at least would be a lot more common, with more people in the hobby, and more access to remote sites. It is not my intent to rehash old discussions about categories etc. that have long been laid to rest. Merely to say that good data is much more important than processing and clear and dark skies and good seeing and, to a somewhat lesser extent, expensive equipment, are huge factors in good data which are hard or even impossible to overcome by processing alone. PS: I took another look at your recent images from Chile. They are absolutely stunning in depth and detail. Like this one. Can you honestly say that it was the processing that was the differentiator?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Charles Hagen:
Hi Philip,
I am one of the submitters on the IOTD team - There are a couple things I immediately notice about your image which may have detracted from its chances in the IOTD queue. This is not to say that the image is bad, but there are some things I would recommend to improve chances next time.
1. The first, and most notable thing that I see are the portions of the image that are pushed more than what the data can support. The tidal tail is present and bright, but lacks all color and is very noisy. The noise pattern is also inconsistent across the image which makes for a blotchy look. Using a less aggressive stretch, sacrificing a bit of faint structure visibility for overall aesthetics can help a lot imo.
2. There is some chromatic aberration present in your stars. I own an esprit 100 as well and I have imaged the same target - taking steps in processing to suppress some of the purple / red bloat may have made the image more appealing to the judging team.
3. The colors ended up being a bit strange and desaturated. I find this is usually because of an incorrect application of luminance. Matching the stretch of the luminance to the RGB may lead to better outcomes.
4. The background is a bit bright. This is more of a personal preference, but I would probably aim for a background value of 9-10% whereas yours is at about 15%. With excessively bright backgrounds, noise can become more apparent as well.
Having imaged this same target before with near-identical gear, you can see some of the choices I made to err on the side of subtlety rather than trying to squeeze every last drop out of the data. I find that sometimes less is more - staying within the bounds of the data you collected often leads to a more appealing end result. https://app.astrobin.com/u/jimmythechicken?i=ghgbmy
Hope this helps,
Charlie Hey Charles! Many thanks for that detailed feedback! Especally the star colours is something with wich I alway's struggle. I am using the Riccardi Reducer and many stars are burned out at 60s subs and much more with 180s subs ... I haven't found a proper technique jet to fix that burned star cores ... Thank you very much and I will try to enhance my processing for my next projects CS Philip
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Charles Hagen:
Hi Philip,
I am one of the submitters on the IOTD team - There are a couple things I immediately notice about your image which may have detracted from its chances in the IOTD queue. This is not to say that the image is bad, but there are some things I would recommend to improve chances next time.
1. The first, and most notable thing that I see are the portions of the image that are pushed more than what the data can support. The tidal tail is present and bright, but lacks all color and is very noisy. The noise pattern is also inconsistent across the image which makes for a blotchy look. Using a less aggressive stretch, sacrificing a bit of faint structure visibility for overall aesthetics can help a lot imo.
2. There is some chromatic aberration present in your stars. I own an esprit 100 as well and I have imaged the same target - taking steps in processing to suppress some of the purple / red bloat may have made the image more appealing to the judging team.
3. The colors ended up being a bit strange and desaturated. I find this is usually because of an incorrect application of luminance. Matching the stretch of the luminance to the RGB may lead to better outcomes.
4. The background is a bit bright. This is more of a personal preference, but I would probably aim for a background value of 9-10% whereas yours is at about 15%. With excessively bright backgrounds, noise can become more apparent as well.
Having imaged this same target before with near-identical gear, you can see some of the choices I made to err on the side of subtlety rather than trying to squeeze every last drop out of the data. I find that sometimes less is more - staying within the bounds of the data you collected often leads to a more appealing end result. https://app.astrobin.com/u/jimmythechicken?i=ghgbmy
Hope this helps,
Charlie
Hey Charles!
Many thanks for that detailed feedback!
Especally the star colours is something with wich I alway's struggle. I am using the Riccardi Reducer and many stars are burned out at 60s subs and much more with 180s subs ...
I haven't found a proper technique jet to fix that burned star cores ...
Thank you very much and I will try to enhance my processing for my next projects
CS
Philip
It’s best to take separate star only exposures. I use 30s, but sometimes that could still be too long on some systems. Process everything starless and then extract and process the stars separately. Recombine them at the end with a screen function and reverse stretch. That way you have total control of the stars independent of the rest of the image and can make sure they’re well controlled in size and color. I also avoid using BlurX on stars images and just capture them cleanly because I prefer the natural look of stars rather than what I see as the over sharpened stars from blurx with too much concentrated in the cores and removing color.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
love the image! got my +1
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
the Astrobin IOTD Award is an additional motivation to achieve, isn't it? I am sure that this really isn't even a consideration for the vast majority of people
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I personally think that an entirely fair judgement would be that it is a really good image of the NGC3628 tidal stream -- but it is not an especially good image of any of the three galaxies. So I wonder if it might have been be better composed just around NGC3628 and the adjacent tidal stream as in this image NGC 3628 - The Hamburger Galaxy and its tidal tail (Frank Breslawski) - AstroBin which is a relatively good image of the galaxy but clearly not so good at yours on the tidal stream?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi there!
Allow me to critique your image
1. Color and faint detail of Hamburger Galaxy
While saturation levels go to personal taste - Bravo on the tail - however on the faint spirals coming out of the galaxy/tail. these are very faint details that i took the decision not to display because i felt like my data didnt gain the right for me to display it. if you stretch that faint detail to similar brightness to your galaxies you end up with a noisy detailed tail. which looks like 50% noise 50% signal. however it can be kept on brightness similar to the background - not at the same level that it is displayed on your photo.
2. Stars/background
A bit over saturated stars. Also there are many Stars and small galaxies in the background that was missed. Maybe because your L with stretched differently than your stars. the way I create my background stars: I stretch L to a reasonable level making sure my big stars are not overly bloated. if i reach a level where i need to stretch L more I remove the stars and combine it later when its time to combine L with RGB - It is a necessity to combine L Stars with RGB Stars and not rely on RGB for faint very small background galaxies.
Good luck and clear skies
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Your image is great but your reasons for astrophotography are wrong!!!!! Enjoy for yourself, why does it meters if your image is IOTD pick!!!! Thank you. I am enjoying astrophotography. But the IOTD award is a nice feedback system if you improve your skill in my opinion. And I started this thread to improve myself and get feedback on my processing, because sometimes I feel blind about mistakes in my processing. And in my opinion I was able to improve the image from the first version to the current one a lot. If I can find the time, I will start the processing from the scratch for this project. CS Philip
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Just a personal observation, having just read this topic from the beginning.
You have gained far more insight into the processing of astro images by posting this topic than you ever would have from winning IOTD.
IOTD is nice sure, but getting constructive feedback from your peers is so much more valuable IMO.
CS
John
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tim Hawkes:
the Astrobin IOTD Award is an additional motivation to achieve, isn't it?
I am sure that this really isn't even a consideration for the vast majority of people if we're going by guesses here, I think the opposite
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Your image is great but your reasons for astrophotography are wrong!!!!! Enjoy for yourself, why does it meters if your image is IOTD pick!!!!
Thank you. I am enjoying astrophotography. But the IOTD award is a nice feedback system if you improve your skill in my opinion. And I started this thread to improve myself and get feedback on my processing, because sometimes I feel blind about mistakes in my processing. And in my opinion I was able to improve the image from the first version to the current one a lot.
If I can find the time, I will start the processing from the scratch for this project.
CS
Philip
I understand but, my advice to you and to all, just enjoy!!! This is nice hobby with lot of creativity if you wish so. And you must be aware that we amateurs can not mach photos taken with some 500.000 USD equipment from Chile. This simple is not possible. So IOTD will come at some time and if not still you can be happy and enjoy your photos with your friends and family.
Not running a $500,000 system in Chile is no reason not to try to improve skill at processing the data you have, and no reason to not try to acquire better data, either, even if that just means more data. I think your heart is in the right place about enjoying the hobby and never mind the IOTD, but personally it's been a very helpful system to me improving my processing because I can use it to help me find examples of great images of targets I'm working on which helps me refine my skills and then, yes, it's also nice to get some recognition from the community when you do a good job with an image. Just a personal observation, having just read this topic from the beginning.
You have gained far more insight into the processing of astro images by posting this topic than you ever would have from winning IOTD.
IOTD is nice sure, but getting constructive feedback from your peers is so much more valuable IMO.
CS
John Totally agree with you here John, the feedback in this (and generally in most RCC threads) is very helpful in improving skill.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I submitted my Tripplet for IOhhhTD but the governing board, they did not agree I tried it again and added one more P Please accept my Trippplet It means a lot to me They replied that no matter the Ps It will not make the hit list and they're sorry as can be Maybe resubmit, except this time with just one P Because spelling matters to us at IOhhhTD All in fun, brother!  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
In a more serious light, really impressed with the tidal tail. Something I have missed in my LT attempts. I'll try it again and see if I can bring mine up to the bar you have set. Nice image in that respect.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
DavesView:
I submitted my Tripplet for IOhhhTD
but the governing board, they did not agree
I tried it again and added one more P
Please accept my Trippplet
It means a lot to me
They replied that no matter the Ps
It will not make the hit list and they're sorry as can be
Maybe resubmit, except this time with just one P
Because spelling matters to us
at IOhhhTD
All in fun, brother!  Taking the P's by any chance?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tim Hawkes:
DavesView:
I submitted my Tripplet for IOhhhTD
but the governing board, they did not agree
I tried it again and added one more P
Please accept my Trippplet
It means a lot to me
They replied that no matter the Ps
It will not make the hit list and they're sorry as can be
Maybe resubmit, except this time with just one P
Because spelling matters to us
at IOhhhTD
All in fun, brother!
Taking the P's by any chance? Ya got me!  Actually, p should be lower case. "Apostrophes can also be used to pluralize lowercase letters." ref:  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
