Is there a consistent definition for acquisition method? For example, today’s IOTD claims it is from an “Own Remote Observatory”. However, a little research shows this: ”Skinakas Observatory is a joint research facility of the University of Crete and the Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH). Its prime objective is to conduct fundamental research in Astrophysics as well as to promote astronomy and enjoying the wonders of the night sky to the general public in Greece. ” An observatory run by a university is a very different thing than something someone private has set up through their own funds and their own effort. I don’t care that all these images compete for the same badges - I am more interested in properly classifying them so people viewing them can clearly see how they were acquired and whether they can reasonably replicate them. Similarly, I feel like there should be a tag of some sort that separates “processed by” versus “processed and acquired by”. There are vast differences in effort and commitment between the two.
|
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.
Definitely NOT an " Own Remote Observatory" IMO…. if I would know someone who works for the NASA and would be willing to let me have some raw data from Hubble or JW, I would be the super hero in astrophotography, right? Just not right, I think!
|
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:
Is there a consistent definition for acquisition method? For example, today’s IOTD claims it is from an “Own Remote Observatory”. However, a little research shows this:
”Skinakas Observatory is a joint research facility of the University of Crete and the Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH). Its prime objective is to conduct fundamental research in Astrophysics as well as to promote astronomy and enjoying the wonders of the night sky to the general public in Greece. ”
An observatory run by a university is a very different thing than something someone private has set up through their own funds and their own effort.
I don’t care that all these images compete for the same badges - I am more interested in properly classifying them so people viewing them can clearly see how they were acquired and whether they can reasonably replicate them. Similarly, I feel like there should be a tag of some sort that separates “processed by” versus “processed and acquired by”. There are vast differences in effort and commitment between the two. Fully agree. 👍😊
|
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.
that all these images compete for the same badges - I am more interested in properly classifying them so people viewing them can clearly see how they were acquired and whether they can reasonably replicate them. Similarly, I feel like there should be a tag of some sort that separates “processed by” versus “processed and acquired by”. There are vast differences in effort and commitment between the two. This is the way that this sort of comment comes off though, "How come I have to compete with these pros?!", IOTD isn't about commitment, or time in the hobby, or how good your gear is, its a subjective award chosen via vote process, and eventually captains call. All of these "Why this?" "How come not" questions are silly, the judges just liked something more on that day. And as for properly classifying so that you can evaluate if you can reasonably replicate the effort, the image is easily identifiable as been taken from a very large telescope just by looking at it. And he lists ASA 1000 as the telescope used. I think that's sufficient evidence.
|
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.
Peter Merrick:
that all these images compete for the same badges - I am more interested in properly classifying them so people viewing them can clearly see how they were acquired and whether they can reasonably replicate them. Similarly, I feel like there should be a tag of some sort that separates “processed by” versus “processed and acquired by”. There are vast differences in effort and commitment between the two.
This is the way that this sort of comment comes off though, "How come I have to compete with these pros?!", IOTD isn't about commitment, or time in the hobby, or how good your gear is, its a subjective award chosen via vote process, and eventually captains call. All of these "Why this?" "How come not" questions are silly, the judges just liked something more on that day.
And as for properly classifying so that you can evaluate if you can reasonably replicate the effort, the image is easily identifiable as been taken from a very large telescope just by looking at it. And he lists ASA 1000 as the telescope used. I think that's sufficient evidence. I think I was extremely clear in my comment. If you choose to read something else than what I wrote, the issue does not lie with me. I also can read that it was taken with an ASA 1000. It is in the image. My request is that it be classified as taken from a commercial facility since classifying it as own remote is factually inaccurate. It seems you disagree and you are within your rights to do so. incidentally - if you are going to quote from my post - please take the trouble to quote entire sentences and not portions on them so they cannot be taken out of context.
|
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.
Pfff. It is quite clear that Arun isn't after the Pros (i.e., the rich guys) vs. the Rest of Us argument rehashed one way or another. It is about the mislabelling of the data source as of OWNING the actual equipment used AND having had a hand in setting up and running it. It ain't the same as me renting the ASA1000 in Chile for 200 bucks an hour. There is a clear and, I would argue, vast difference in effort and commitment between the two.
|
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 quoted a portion because that was the portion I was addressing. I don't really disagree with you, I just think its a weird thing to make a big deal out of. You must know that the categories are self selected, and so maybe the IOTD today they chose wrong by accident, or since there is no formal definition, maybe what you consider to be a certain category others might not consider to be.
I just think that the argument that someone might be catfished into thinking they can take an image like that at home, given the equipment used is disingenuous.
|
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.
Peter Merrick:
I quoted a portion because that was the portion I was addressing. I don't really disagree with you, I just think its a weird thing to make a big deal out of. You must know that the categories are self selected, and so maybe the IOTD today they chose wrong by accident, or since there is no formal definition, maybe what you consider to be a certain category others might not consider to be.
I just think that the argument that someone might be catfished into thinking they can take an image like that at home, given the equipment used is disingenuous. It isn’t a question of “catfishing”. It is simply making it clear what the contribution of the author to the work is. It would be the same for a book or a painting. As a system that aspires to record work, I don’t think this level of transparency is unreasonable for Astrobin even if it may be obvious in a few cases. How works are judged is independent of how contribution is recorded - I could care less it won an IOTD or not. I care more about accurately recording, or giving the means to do so, how an image was taken and what the contribution of the named author to the image was.
|
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 think some people might be confused because there are two groups in the form field: Self-acquired and External sources. They might feel that the image is self-acquired at a remote observatory, so that would tick the box, and fail to read the subtext: "your own equipment at a remote observatory you own or rent". There is probably a whole in the categorization here. I'm open to reorganizing this but we cannot break tens of thousands of images, so any change must be done so it doesn't change the meaning of an existing entry. I'm interested in proposals.  |
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.
