| I see a lot of images (some even award winning) that lack significant detail on just how the image was created. So the question is: Should imagers disclose the details of location, equipment, exposures, processing software, and (if it affects the image significantly) processing methods? | |
|---|---|
| Yes, I know it is extra work but it is the ethical thing to do and helps others. | |
| No, it is nobody's business but mine and I don't want people to know what I did to my images. | |
| Login to vote and view results. |
4.52
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Yes. The need to write down those things was the best thing on astrophotography reddit until it turned shit.
|
4.52
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
I would think for most of the people here, this is a hobby, and as such, sharing information seems the right thing to do. I'm not too worried about winning awards here as I'm pretty far down the talent chain, but I do try to put down the basics. I don't put down the individual steps like say Ron Brecher does on his site because for the most part, I'm flying by the seat of my pants. lol I have some tools I know how to use to some degree and I tinker with the image until it looks as good as I can make it. Maybe others have found out a magic formula, but for me, no plan survies first contact with an image and I diverge pretty quickly so I don't include processing details because, I don't know them. I use the tools I have in my toolbox.
|
2.39
...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
There are many great perspectives contained in this discussion thread. Before taking up the astrophotography hobby, I spent 40 years in competitive scientific research and development. Generating and securing intellectual property was absolutely essential. That said, sharing scientific advances was also an integral aspect of our business model. Basically, you can learn more by sharing than keeping your advances to yourself. The collaborative approach to astrophotography is one reason I took up the hobby since I knew essentially nothing about astronomy and imaging before I started my journey. I am eternally grateful to all who have openly shared their expert experiences and knowledge. I could not have done any of this without the generosity of the great contributors on Astrobin and YouTube. Thanks to all.
|
0.00
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Bill McLaughlin:Oscar: Do yourself a favor and never look at the number of servings in the Costco cashew jug, you will just be disappointed in yourself haha. For this topic, I personally like to see details on relative location, bortle scale, equipment, and exposure time. The software for processing doesn't really matter to me since everyone is going to have their own techniques to make images look how they want them to. If someone cares to comment on one of my images and ask about my processing steps (yet to happen) I would gladly tell them everything I did. |
2.41
...
·
·
8
likes
|
|---|
It doesn’t matter either way. It’s science, mechanics and art. What bothers me is real backyard astronomy imagers, those who build and meticulously operate their gear to capture these images don’t get enough credit. These days it’s easy to pay a remote observatory, push a button and get perfect data. But the person who sets up, prepares and sits with the gear as it gathers photons is a true scientist and artist.
|
14.24
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Jeff Bennett: setting up a remote observatory does take quite a bit of work. It isn’t the mere push of a button. Gear had to be selected that is very robust under varying conditions, things that you wouldn’t even consider as a backyard imager (like a thread on an adapter becoming loose) can stop you from imaging, and a significant problem typically means an airplane trip. So I do have quite a bit of respect for those who set up their gear at remote locations. Buying data on the other hand should be treated differently- I know Astrobin treats it the same, but I don’t. |
12.31
...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
I like to disclose and discuss and much about the capture and processing as possible. Not only does this help others it helps me. Firstly because it's the best way to get feedback from others about things I should be doing/trying and secondly because it documents the process I used so I can refer to it down the road. Since none (few?) of us are making a living with these images, I like to think we can all help each other grow and learn together. Kevin |
8.34
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Jeff Bennett: It depends. Not all "remote observatories" are created equal. Some do ALL the setup for you, others you need to do it all yourself, yet others it is a mix of the two. Then there are those who just rent time on THEIR systems and those who just sell the data from THEIR systems. IMHO the latter two (and especially the last one) are not really entirely your images in the true sense of the word. You become a processor and only that. For my remote, it is all my own equipment, bought and paid for (and in a few cases, built). I make a trip at least once a year and set everything up myself. I operate it all myself and process it all myself. I want the image to be as much mine as possible so no more help then absolutely required (basically only when something goes wrong with the hardware and that is seldom) and no collaborations for me. |
1.20
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
I believe it is helpful for others to at least know the equipment and integration details as to better understand how an image was acquired and processed. As to explain the processing workflow, I think that is too much detail to explain and it's better to ask and answer questions around it.
|
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
I know for me at least. I could give a general idea of my workflow and the details are different for every image I process. Some of that is learning curve and a lit of it is what the data requires. It would be pretty useless for someone else to try and duplicate someone else's workflow and expect the same result.
|
|
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
Tony Gondola: I think this is a great point. Once you understand that a workflow is aimed to give you a general understanding of in which order to perform certain operations (linear vs non linear) and also what each tool does, you can then apply that knowledge to solve the particular problems that are presented specifically in your images. Copy and pasting someone else's workflow will not take you to the next level. |
|
8.34
...
·
|
|---|
Kevin Morefield: Better than almost anyone on Astrobin too (IMHO) and that includes myself! The transparency is greatly respected and appreciated and a lot of imagers could learn from your example, even those (or maybe even especially those) with many IOTDs! |
15.16
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
This thread makes me recall that 12 years ago there was an astrophotography exhibition in Bates college called Starstruck. That exhibition has a goal to establish astrophotography as a class of fine art. Many contributors were well know astrophotographers at that time or even from the previous century. I contributed some pictures (by shipping framed prints to US), too. I happened to be in that general area during the exhibition, so I paid a visit. One interesting thing I noticed is that, for every picture, the display did not show the equipments nor imaging/processing method. Other than the titles and author names, the only thing it showed was the print material and method of the print (like “inkjet print on XXX paper”). The pictures are just like the pictures we see daily here, but the concept of information revealing is completely different. This was quite interesting to me. In today’s mainstream way of showing images (over internet), the equivalence would probably be just telling others what brand of memory card you used without telling people the telescope, camera, exposure setting etc. Can you imagine this? Anyway, I think people should be free to do whatever they want. I can enjoy an excellent picture without seeing its imaging/processing information, and I can tell whether it’s an AI art without the information (at least for now). I definitely enjoy more if the author provides such information. I do my best to provide the information too. To me, this is an important way of making documentation, like what Kevin said above. All these are voluntary. On the other hand, when competition or any form of recognition (IOTD, or my clicking like) is involved, I think it is very fair to require an image to have sufficient information in order to receive an award or some recognization. |
|
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang: I would imagine that to the general public, the fine details would be mostly meaningless anyway, |
|
8.34
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang: I would second that. Getting an award should put a greater expectation and greater obligations upon the person (or group, as if often the case) getting the award. There should be a minimum informational requirement for images to qualify for awards and those should (maybe?) scale with the level of the award. |
|
8.34
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
I would imagine that to the general public, the fine details would be mostly meaningless anyway, For photos in art gallery style exhibitions for the public, I would agree. OTOH the more technical the audience, the more detail is relevant. For example, images in a photography magazine would likely have many technical details but the same photos in an art gallery would not. |
