Die Launische Diva:
It is an over-processed rendition of the tidal stream, in my humble opinion. Isn't it strange that a galaxy (IC 2787) has almost the same brightness as the knots in the tidal stream (relatively) next to it? I don't mind the color noise and saturation by the way. Please don't start another "why this and not that" thread. Enjoy the hobby ❤️
Well, over-processed is relative in my opinion if you take a look into the auto stretched starless lum:
CS
And this is the starless version of your image which shows a nice processing of the Triplet galaxies, and some selective processing of the background and the tidal stream:  I (want to believe) that Submitters have become more experienced in spotting such issues, and I eventually hope that my response was a constructive one. CS!
|
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.
Yes  The CC that I got today helped me a lot to enhance my image, in my opinion!  Thank you all! CS
|
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.
It would be sometimes just nice to figure out, why the IOTD Team discarded you image. I understand, that this is not possible for the nomination phase, but it would be nice to understand the decition why a Top Pick was not good enough to get an IOTD. Why doesn't every image taken by someone like John Hayes get an IOTD? There are many factors, including a limited number of images that can be advanced and also that the judges look for factors other than pure quality (such as geography, demographics, type of subject etc.) when advancing an image.
|
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.
Salvatore Iovene:
Remotely acquired images usually benefit from better equipment and better location than the average backyard image, so that's only natural. Definitely true. I have seen this within my own images since I have both a backyard setup in a fairly dark location and a remote setup. Because the remote setup has more clear nights and better seeing, I put my better equipment there as well and as a consequence of both conditions and equipment I have seen far more top picks and nominations from the remote site. Of course because I acquire and process all the images from both places, that eliminates operator and processor skills from the equation. I have also noted that the more unusual the object, the more notice it tends to get, and although the 3628 tidal tail was very well done, at the end of the day it is a commonly imaged object even if the tail is less so.
|
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.
Not going to rehash the critique that the astute commentors have already pointed out as I tend to agree with most of it. I would also add that if you look at the IOTD history, the trend is for objects that are on the less frequently photographed end of the spectrum, or some accented feature of an object, particularly with scientific data attached. The shear quantity of images the IOTD team views means frequently photographed objects/regions must REALLY standout for consideration. And part or all of the Leo triplet has been published over 100 times in the last week. I dare say most were likely IOTD submittals. As I look through those images, there are some very high quality images in there.
I am someone that has submitted several images that I thought were worthy, but were not only void of submitter consideration, they got outright early dismissals. The only badge I have (Top Pick) is for a video of all things. I've come to realize that high-traffic regions like this are likely to get lost in the crowd and what I would consider unimportant imperfections are highly important for IOTD consideration. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it. Keep advancing your process and focus on the fact that you are getting a significant number of views.
|
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.
Where can you find the submitter votes referenced in the original post by Pmneo??
|
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.
“View IOTD/TP stats” in the image’s menu.
|
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.
Salvatore Iovene:
Good point, thanks @Arun H! Didn't think of that, seeing that this data is linked straight on the front page near the "Image of the day" label. It is true that the remotely acquired images are over-represented, but this actually proves that the IOTD/TP works well in selecting for good images, which its goal after all, regardless of the acquisition type. Remotely acquired images usually benefit from better equipment and better location than the average backyard image, so that's only natural.
I suppose that if we tracked "money spent" that would also correlate with "probability of having an IOTD/TP award". +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.
Salvatore Iovene:
I suppose that if we tracked "money spent" that would also correlate with "probability of having an IOTD/TP award". Hahaha! Yeah, if that were true, every one of my images would be an IOTD! I've seen images from my uber-expensive rig in Chile get stomped by a guy with a DSLR taking sky-scapes from his backyard. The idea that spending more money increases your odds of getting good images seems reasonable but I don't think that it's true. Spending more money generally happens when you've been at it for a longer period of time, which usually translates into better processing skills gained over time. I think that processing skills will always trump money spent. 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.
John Hayes:
Salvatore Iovene:
I suppose that if we tracked "money spent" that would also correlate with "probability of having an IOTD/TP award".
Hahaha! Yeah, if that were true, every one of my images would be an IOTD! I've seen images from my uber-expensive rig in Chile get stomped by a guy with a DSLR taking sky-scapes from his backyard. The idea that spending more money increases your odds of getting good images seems reasonable but I don't think that it's true. Spending more money generally happens when you've been at it for a longer period of time, which usually translates into better processing skills gained over time. I think that processing skills will always trump money spent.
John I agree.....I think this is where an artistic eye and processing skills come together. Both, in my case are a constant work in 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.
Processing skills and time spent on it with attention to detail is the most overlooked factor in success with high quality, awarded images, in my opinion. I very frequently see people who think they have a data problem when actually they have a processing problem.
|
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 think that processing skills will always trump money spent. I doubt that though. It is a lot easier to process good data. You can't get the kind of images you get from dark sky sites from Bortle 6,7, and 8 backyards where we have to fight limited clear sky time, bad seeing, and light pollution. I keep hearing about processing like it is some kind of magic. No amount of processing can cover the gap between a 20 inch scope on a Chilean mountaintop and a 100 mm refractor in a Bortle 7 site where we are fighting just to get a few hours of clear sky time. If this gap could be covered by processing, so many people would not be going remote. Why spend $100K setting up a scope if you could get the same data from your backyard, or cover the gap with processing? Note - I am not saying you cannot take good images from these sites, I am saying that you can take better images from remote sites.
|
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.
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. John himself has an excellent video on how much of an enormous differentiator good seeing is. I think the images taken these days are amazing. But I have a huge problem with saying that the gap between these kinds of images and what's taken from a typical suburban backyard is processing. It is factually and scientifically inaccurate. There is a reason many people go remote and it isn't because they are bad processors. I have zero problem with this, by the way. People have the absolute right to use their money the way they see fit to bring them happiness. And Astrobin has the absolute right to decide how to recognize images. I do have a problem with saying that processing is more important or can cover the advantages that things like seeing, clear sky time, and absence of light pollution bring.
|
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.
but, we have to admit, that we are right now voting for photos that are very treated. I mean, are representing not what really is in the picture, but to making appear things that are very faint, making other that are already very present in the picture, more faint. I don't know if I'm expressing myself well.
anyway… this is art at the end. So I think it doesn't matter what I think hahaha
|
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:
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. John himself has an excellent video on how much of an enormous differentiator good seeing is. I think the images taken these days are amazing. But I have a huge problem with saying that the gap between these kinds of images and what's taken from a typical suburban backyard is processing. It is factually and scientifically inaccurate. There is a reason many people go remote and it isn't because they are bad processors. I have zero problem with this, by the way. People have the absolute right to use their money the way they see fit to bring them happiness. And Astrobin has the absolute right to decide how to recognize images. I do have a problem with saying that processing is more important or can cover the advantages that things like seeing, clear sky time, and absence of light pollution bring. I don't think anyone is going to argue that you can cover the gap between a great location with great gear and a typical backyard with inexpensive gear entirely via processing. What I would argue, though, is that reasonable midrange gear in an unremarkable, decently light polluted location can produce results which are noticeably superior to results from expensive gear at a great location if the processing of the more modest data is considerably better, so there's a sort of "region of overlap" in the potential quality of images from the two very different situations. I've seen plenty of people with expensive gear at expensive remote sites who are not very good at/don't care much about processing and do not produce good images by any reasonable technical definition. There is a lot of skill and practice in processing which is necessary to get a great result (or even a merely good one) even if the data is excellent. It is certainly much easier to get that great (or good) result if the data you start with is excellent, and for some targets if you have excellent data all you have to do is not do much harm in the processing and the result will look good, but you see great data ruined by terrible processing all the time on astrobin. I think if people in that situation spent more time learning and practicing processing their results would improve considerably. I know from personal experience that once I started seeking out criticism of my work from others my processing improved quite a lot. I don't claim to be any great expert, but I care and I put time into it and I try to get the best result I can from the data I have without falling for the temptation of thinking "well, if I just had 0.5 arcsec seeing from a mountain in Chile..." or other similar things.
|
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.
Kyle Goodwin:
What I would argue, though, is that reasonable midrange gear in an unremarkable, decently light polluted location can produce results which are noticeably superior to results from expensive gear at a great location if the processing of the more modest data is considerably better, so there's a sort of "region of overlap" in the potential quality of images from the two very different situations. I don't disagree that there is a region of overlap. But where I push back is when people who do have access to sites of great seeing, excellent dark skies, great seeing etc. forget those advantages and say that processing is more important than all these factors. My perspective is that it sends a message that, if only you are a better processor, you could take any image here. That is simply not true. But I do think it is true that, within the limitations that most people have, it is always possible to improve and find success and satisfaction. That's all. PS: I should mention - I do have a huge amount of respect for people who set up equipment remote. It isn't easy. It takes a lot of work and continuing effort. Their efforts deserve recognition. It is absolutely not simply pushing a button!
|
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.
We see a lot of Leo Triplets. That really is the simple answer. While the tidal stream is nice, we are at a point now where its pretty much considered a bare essential for hopes of promotion.
Asking why this is not promoted is in a similar vein to those who might ask why their Rosette or Orion's Nebula was not promoted. The simple answer is there are tonnes of them, and even if its a high quality image you are just spinning the wheel at that point. I've noticed for very common objects there is no rhyme or reason as to what gets promoted and what does not.
I think I calculated the stats once, and only something like 2% of Rosettes actually get awarded anything. I can imagine its the same for other very common objects.
|
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.
Wow, I really didn't expect this to start such an avalanche!
But I agree that indeed the Leo's Tripplet is a very common target. Maybe I was just expecting to much because of that strong tidal trail in my data that I haven't seen before.
Well I also have to say, good data has it's pro and con's. I can not compare my data with data from really dark sites. I only have tried a remote obsy for two projects, but with far less integraton time then mine.
I can only say, that strong raw data can lead into overprocessing or the feeling that you did's squeezed out the maximum of the data. This does not happen that easy with worser raw data … you can see the maximum much earlier ^^
But I also have to agree, that good raw data is not a guarantee for great results ;)
Always Clear Skies and thank you for the constructive critics here!
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.
We see a lot of Leo Triplets. That really is the simple answer. While the tidal stream is nice, we are at a point now where its pretty much considered a bare essential for hopes of promotion.
Asking why this is not promoted is in a similar vein to those who might ask why their Rosette or Orion's Nebula was not promoted. The simple answer is there are tonnes of them, and even if its a high quality image you are just spinning the wheel at that point. I've noticed for very common objects there is no rhyme or reason as to what gets promoted and what does not.
I think I calculated the stats once, and only something like 2% of Rosettes actually get awarded anything. I can imagine its the same for other very common objects. I really think this applies to the hobby in general as much as it applies to winning awards and getting attention. It's the Grand Canyon syndrome that we all have to live with. Our hardware and software is extremely powerful so showing a common field, even if it is covered with well rendered LFN really doesn't float the boat anymore. IMO it's all about looking for the edges, in subject, data gathering processing and composition. If you follow the rules too closely and shoot the same subjects that everyone else does, well, welcome to the Grand Canyon.
|
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 wouldn't be so concerned about internet badges. The IOTD is a really great system for promoting accomplishments in this community but if you are focused on pleasing the panel I think you'll end up hurting your ability to enjoy this pursuit.
I've been happiest creating what I am compelled to create and learning so that I can do more of that.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but I think you might have a better time if, when asking for a critique, you asked for feedback about specific aspects of your image rather than "why didn't I get an award".
Great image btw.
|
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 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=ghgbmyHope this helps, Charlie
|
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.
Arun H:
Kyle Goodwin:
What I would argue, though, is that reasonable midrange gear in an unremarkable, decently light polluted location can produce results which are noticeably superior to results from expensive gear at a great location if the processing of the more modest data is considerably better, so there's a sort of "region of overlap" in the potential quality of images from the two very different situations.
I don't disagree that there is a region of overlap.
But where I push back is when people who do have access to sites of great seeing, excellent dark skies, great seeing etc. forget those advantages and say that processing is more important than all these factors. My perspective is that it sends a message that, if only you are a better processor, you could take any image here. That is simply not true. But I do think it is true that, within the limitations that most people have, it is always possible to improve and find success and satisfaction. That's all. I see the opposite error as more common and it breaks my heart to see it because in the extreme it even leads people to give up on the hobby entirely because they think that no matter what they do they won't be able to achieve a good result from their location. 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.
|
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.
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 downside to lesser objects is that they are quite commonly less spectacular. I have seen quite a few really small objects that, because they are small, are not especially spectacular so get little notice. One can have the very best image ever taken of that object but still fail to have it get any award simply because it lacks the "wow" factor. I have seen this play out a lot, a few times with my images but more often with those of others when I am searching for less common targets. The bottom line for me is that imaging fewer common objects is really more a matter of "been there, done that" than anything else. |
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.
