[RCC] Why is my Leo's Tripplet ignored from the IOTD Submitters Requests for constructive critique · pmneo · ... · 85 · 5168 · 17

I did not read all those very detailed and many posts but I was asking myself a similar question - I have submitted in the past, say three, years, many really very good images but the best I got was top picture and top picture nominated. So I kept asking - what is the difference between my very best images and those which become IOTD?

Here my conclusions:

1. Your picture should not be of a very well know and 1000 times imaged target - unless, it is really exceptional. Exceptional means - adding a not before seen contrasting feature which requires and extremely long integration time - example: Andromeda Galaxy within its HII region plus the previously unknown OIII nebula. That image is absolutely outstanding and exceptional, despite the fact, that the target is taken almost 1000 times a day during galaxy season.

2. Your picture must be perfectly processed. What does this mean - not only the stars must be small, round and of the correct color without residual color artefacts and aberrations but also the target itself must be absolutely perfectly processed - no "black" details, no "burned" details and neither oversaturated, over-denoised nor looking "plastic" like, meaning too much Photoshop, too much Affinity, Luminar, ON1 or whatever was used to make it pleasantly looking. 

3. Do not aim for a perfectly black background - the skies are not perfectly black. They are full of dust, HII and OII regions and IFN - so be careful about the background. If you recognize a bit of color in the background, ask yourself - is this maybe HII or IFN or my imperfect processing?

4. I tend to the opinion, that "outside" acquired targets are more appreciated than backyard images - why? Well, in our backyard, there is usually not Bortle 1 and usually not 330 days of clear skies to grab hundreds of hours for integration - many of us live in Bortle 3,4,5 or whatever area with a weather, that at its best permits maybe 10-20 hours integration in a very good week.  Some of us are living in a desert area - good for them, if they can use their clear skies due to other obligations like work, family and whatever. It means that usually our images are the result of often not enough subs to become perfect - too much noise reduction and too much pushing as a result ( not to forget those f… satellites and planes)

Well, after all those thoughts - will I every get a IOPD, I don´t know, I am not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Would this harm my interest and joy doing astrophotography - I must not! I am a retired teacher, age 76 and enjoy my hobby, I like what I do and that´s it.

Keep enjoying what you are doing and do it for yourself and whoever likes your images!

And before I forget to mention it: Your picture is excellent!

CS
Georg
(from Lower Austria)

Where do you see submitter votes?

There are lots and lots of top picks on any given day which are as technically proficient as an IOTD, but what separates the IOTD is as Georg says:

Georg N. Nyman:
Your picture should not be of a very well know and 1000 times imaged target - unless, it is really exceptional.

To be IOTD the image generally has to be unique beyond just being technically excellent.  Something people haven't seen before or a unique composition or some transient phenomenon or something like that.

Kyle Goodwin:
To be IOTD the image generally has to be unique beyond just being technically excellent.  Something people haven't seen before or a unique composition or some transient phenomenon or something like that.

Quite true but I have also noted that smaller and less spectacular objects can often have  a high level technical excellence but because they lack the "wow" factor of larger or more colorful or more "interesting" objects, they often get little notice by evaluators. The list of images of smaller and less spectacular objects that have been done nearly perfectly by many imagers yet gotten little or no recognition is long indeed. In this sense I don't mean just IOTD but also the two levels of top pick.

I am not sure how one could rectify that and if one could it would probably further increase the burden on already overloaded evaluators. It would be nice if this could be fixed but I don't see how.

Tony Gondola:
I have no idea but maybe it's felt that not using the perfect FL for the object is something they consider.

What I mean is (mostly) a tiny object, maybe a small galaxy or planetary nebula, for example. It may be imaged at  long focal length but the object itself is not especially spectacular due to the limits of the atmosphere or the object itself. These could be exceptional in terms of technique and could even be the best image ever taken of that object by an amateur imager but still fail to get any attention due to it's basically unspectacular nature.

I think what bothers me about this is that awards should (IMHO) reflect skills and dedication and effort yet they can fail in  that regard simply based on the imager deciding to image a smaller and/or  less spectacular object.  That would not be much of a problem if this were a rare occurrence but I tend to image the rarer things so have looked at many, many of these objects on Astrobin and most of them get few awards even though quite a few are very well done indeed.

At the end of the day, awards are not that important and I have had quite a few, more than most.  I would still be imaging the same amount and the same objects if there were no awards and no Astrobin (and there were neither when I started imaging in the early 90s). Still......

I finally created this Version: https://app.astrobin.com/u/pmneo?i=1m3ks5

And I have tried to respect the Tips for my current galaxy Project: 

https://app.astrobin.com/u/pmneo?i=54tlfp

Thanks at all
CS
Philip