As an astrophotographer, I am not going to progress unless I get the best feedback on my images. I love it when I get that feedback from the community, and even more if there is a helpful critique. But to improve further, I need professional feedback, like from the IOTD team. I am really impressed by the work the AB IOTD team does, as well as their qualifications to do this difficult task. I do not have those qualifications, so take what I say with a grain of salt. And I won't say I'm in total agreement with them always, but that is my own artistic licence, and theirs--I'm sure they would agree with that, we all need our own vision. My personal guidelines for submission - Do not submit if there is an obvious flaw with the official guidelines.
- Do not clip or oversaturate or over sharpen, or over anything, your images. And bold color can be effective, but not if you overdo it.
- And do look at other images recently that have at least been nominated. "Recently" is important, because every year the standard goes up a lot.
- If your image is unique and there are few examples, do submit it, again assuming there are no obvious flaws.
- I do not submit my images automatically, I wait for feedback from the AB community, and my own: how did I miss that????
- Do find your own inner muse, if you find a style that suits you it will go a long way.
I am not part of the process, so I have no special insider knowledge. I have never got an outright rejection using my own guidlines. And there is nothing more satisfying than to see your image nominated by one or two or ultimately three of the submitters. It is such a good indication you are on the right track. And I have not so far got the covetted IOTD, though close enough to keep me improving my images, and hoping for that one day. One final point, initially you will probably need to submit more of your images to get that feedback--did you get some nominations. Once you know what is required, you will have a better idea of what to submit. Remember, unless you try, you will never know... CS all Rick
|
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.
Timothy Martin:
As a reviewer, I can say that I look at every top pick and IOTD that comes down the pike and then some. But I simply don't have time to do a TP/IOTD search for every image that's in my queue every day--there are currently 62 images in my queue. It would require many hours of work to compare all 62 to other TP/IOTDs. But still, I often do that--especially when a target is not that familiar to me or when I know it is, or appears to be, a very difficult target. That is closer to my understanding of the process. One thing I have definitely noted, both on my images and those of others, is that if the object is less common and/or less spectacular (and those often go together), it is far less likely to get an award of any kind, even if it happens to be the best AB image of that object. I suspect that since these objects lack the 'wow" factor regardless of how well done technically they may be, they are less likely to get an award of any kind and almost never an IOTD. It is just the small price one pays for doing lesser known and less spectacular objects. Imaging on the "road less travelled" is something I enjoy doing and many of the comments I get are along the lines of "I did not know about that object" so perhaps there is some value in that for more than just me.
|
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:
Timothy Martin:
As a reviewer, I can say that I look at every top pick and IOTD that comes down the pike and then some. But I simply don't have time to do a TP/IOTD search for every image that's in my queue every day--there are currently 62 images in my queue. It would require many hours of work to compare all 62 to other TP/IOTDs. But still, I often do that--especially when a target is not that familiar to me or when I know it is, or appears to be, a very difficult target.
That is closer to my understanding of the process.
One thing I have definitely noted, both on my images and those of others, is that if the object is less common and/or less spectacular (and those often go together), it is far less likely to get an award of any kind, even if it happens to be the best AB image of that object. I suspect that since these objects lack the 'wow" factor regardless of how well done technically they may be, they are less likely to get an award of any kind and almost never an IOTD.
It is just the small price one pays for doing lesser known and less spectacular objects. Imaging on the "road less travelled" is something I enjoy doing and many of the comments I get are along the lines of "I did not know about that object" so perhaps there is some value in that for more than just me. I agree with you totally Bill. One of the reasons I like looking at your pictures is because you do some less common objects. I've been doing some of that also, but I've still been trying to prioritize less common objects I feel like I can make visually impactful if I get enough data. I still mix in some more common objects when I just have a personal desire to have imaged it myself. It's meant that my average integration time has gone way up and I publish less frequently, but I'm generally really happy with the results. I think there's a balance on rarity vs awards. If you do a less imaged object that is technically challenging, but one that still has a "wow" factor when it's done you end up much more likely to get an award. If you do an even rarer, even more difficult target that is virtually impossible to "wow" with no matter how well you do it then it seems to be unlikely to lead to an award. My current priority is objects that are rare enough a person with a casual interest in astronomy won't have seen them, but that I can produce sufficient interest to create something for my walls. I love printing my images and have them all over. At some point I'd like to do a montage of less interesting objects that are rare and difficult that might still look interesting if you put a bunch of them together in a single print, for example a collection of the dimmer Abell PNs or smalller Arp galaxies that are hard to get "print worthy" by themselves. For me following my personal goals has led to fair success in awards, but my yardstick is whether I feel like I've created an image that is as good as it can be given the constraints of my location and equipment (which are pretty good, but not CDK20 in the high desert good). I abandon a lot of data when I don't feel like I can accomplish that or as part of the culling effort to do so (I currently am working on M63 and have discarded 39 hours of luminance so far because the seeing has not been good).
|
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:
For me following my personal goals has led to fair success in awards, but my yardstick is whether I feel like I've created an image that is as good as it can be given the constraints of my location and equipment That is as good a summary of what (IMHO) imaging should be all about as I have seen!
|
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:
It is just the small price one pays for doing lesser known and less spectacular objects. Imaging on the "road less travelled" is something I enjoy doing and many of the comments I get are along the lines of "I did not know about that object" so perhaps there is some value in that for more than just me. Absolutely. This is also most of what I do--awards be damned. I also go after some very common objects from time to time, and I'm always looking for a new way to approach them--but sometimes I roll snake-eyes on that. It's a double-edged sword. Sometimes less common objects make a lot of hay, sometimes they don't. It's about the same with common targets--perhaps sometimes because people are sick of them (personally, if I see another Horsehead right now--including my own--I'm going to have to eat three gummies). As I said in another post, while the process itself is very transparent, the results are often inscrutable. But over time, I find it to be fair. With the exception of a few people who produce stunning results on a regular basis--common object or not--breaking through becomes more and more difficult with every passing day as the gear, the tools, and people's skills improve. Still, the gallery of TPs and IOTDs is filled with uncommon and difficult objects that were expertly captured, framed, and rendered (today's IOTD of NGC 4536 is an example). But yes, it is a subjective process where the wow factor plays a large role. In the end (with extreme deference to Salvatore), IOTD is a marketing thing designed to capture interest not only in our sphere, but also in the wider world. I'm okay with that because I'm in favor of just about anything that promotes our avocation. It's a bonus to know that if your image makes TPN, you can feel like you've done good work, and if it makes TP, you can rest assured that you've done very good work. But because of the aforementioned subjectivity, not making either is not a negative reflection on your work. Just do your best work and let the chips fall where they may. As the great poet John Lennon once said, it's "nothing to get hung about."
|
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.
Timothy Martin:
In the end (with extreme deference to Salvatore), IOTD is a marketing thing designed to capture interest not only in our sphere, but also in the wider world. I'm okay with that because I'm in favor of just about anything that promotes our avocation. It's a bonus to know that if your image makes TPN, you can feel like you've done good work, and it if makes TP, you can rest assured that you've done very good work. But because of the aforementioned subjectivity, not making either is not a negative reflection on your work. Just do your best work and let the chips fall where they may. As the great poet John Lennon once said, it's "nothing to get hung about." I think that's a great way to put it. Probably more difficult for those trying really hard for their first award to see it that way, but once you get a few under your belt it definiterly fades to the background. My advice to those seeking their first award would be: - Choose an object that is as challenging/uncommon as you can while still be certain you can do it well (i.e. operate at the edge of your abilities/conditions)
- Look at all the other versions of that object that have received awards and see what they do and don't have in common. Is this a target that seems to nearly always be framed a certain way when it wins awards? If so expect that you're taking a big risk if you choose to do it differently. Is it a target which always adds Ha or is always done in HOO or some other particular thing like that? Risky to do it a different way. You don't have to do the same as everyone else, but you generally don't want to do TOO MANY things differently from what has proven successful in the past if what you're after is an award.
- Figure out what your unique touch is going to be, perhaps really great star colors or framing it with another object included or a tight close-up or whatever it is. This runs counter to #2 in a very narrow sense, in that you want there to be something that makes it "yours" but that doesn't mean you have to totally reimagine how to image a target everyone's seen before.
- This is the most important point: seek feedback from others (and actually want it/listen to it, even if it's very critical) repeatedly as you revise and don't be afraid to start processing again from the masters. Once you're "done" don't submit it until you've at least slept on it and looked again with fresh eyes, but ideally had someone else look at it fresh. I'm happy to help anyone with this step. PM me.
|
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.
Timothy Martin:
In the end (with extreme deference to Salvatore), IOTD is a marketing thing designed to capture interest not only in our sphere, but also in the wider world. I'm okay with that because I'm in favor of just about anything that promotes our avocation. It's a bonus to know that if your image makes TPN, you can feel like you've done good work, and if it makes TP, you can rest assured that you've done very good work. But because of the aforementioned subjectivity, not making either is not a negative reflection on your work. Just do your best work and let the chips fall where they may. As the great poet John Lennon once said, it's "nothing to get hung about." After a couple of years of participation in the image contest/award process I ended up opting out of the contests entirely. I'm much happier with my Astrobin experience now. I continue to use the site to host my image gallery and to search for interesting targets and then I look at other images of my target when planning my data captures. I sometimes look at the IOTD but not often.
|
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.
Dean Jacobsen:
I continue to use the site to host my image gallery and to search for interesting targets and then I look at other images of my target when planning my data captures.
I sometimes look at the IOTD but not often. Agreed. If you look at the IOTD manifesto: The IOTD/TP does not want to represent itself in a way that is discriminatory of astrophotographers or images, and is supposed to be agnostic of:
[*]
Subject category (deep-sky, solar system, terrestrial phenomena…)
[*]
Price of the equipment used
[*]
Location of the image acquisition
[*]
Method or process of the image acquisition It is a very worthwhile goal. But the reality is that good images do require time, dark skies, and good seeing, or put differently, having access to clear sky time, dark skies, and good seeing provides a much more solid basis for great images than not. If you are so fortunate as to have these facilities, continuous improvement and aspiring to an IOTD makes a whole lot of sense. (I should clarify here that continuous improvement always makes sense, but maybe not in the context of an award). But if you do not - or as an example, spend the better part of a whole season fighting weather etc. from your backyard but are in the same pool as people who have generated many more images in that same time frame from better sites, then you are setting yourself up for disappointment if you make the awarding of a badge something that is of importance to you. But it is different for different people, and I totally get that. So, like Dean, I pay next to no attention to an IOTD unless it is by an imager I know, or something that catches my eye (typically this is a landscape photo or an exceptional lunar or planetary photo). I do, however, find a lot of use in searching for TP/TPNs of targets I am imaging so I can determine whether I need more acquisition time or need to process better.
|
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'm always delighted when an IOTD comes up from someone whose work I haven't seen before. I love seeing the different styles that imagers have and learning different ways of making an image stand out.
|
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.
Timothy Martin:
As I said in another post, while the process itself is very transparent, the results are often inscrutable. But over time, I find it to be fair. For sure. One can always find some result or other that seems unfair or maybe just odd depending on one's criteria but overall the process is pretty good. It has become much harder to get a full-on IOTD but I suspect that is due to the rapidly increasing numbers of skilled imagers with really good equipment in really good skies as well as the huge number of imagers of any kind compared to years past. When I started this back in the early 1990s astro-photo guys (and they were almost all guys then) were a bit rare, these days there are tens of thousands worldwide and it is much easier to stand out in a crowd of 100 than one of 100,000...  |
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.
andrea tasselli:
Those were the days... Yeah, but the cameras, mounts, scopes and software is soooo much nicer these days than it was 30 years ago. The image capture program that came with my first SBIG camera in 1997 [ an ST-7 ] was a DOS program! Back then the only outlet for the competitive astrophotography crowd was the NASA APOD.
|
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's honestly a golden age of astrophotography right now. The hobby is expanding, there hasn't been nearly as much of a fall-off after the COVID boom as I expected, the software is amazing, the equipment is amazing…
|
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 sure I would add it to the positives, possibly quite the contrary.
|
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.
andrea tasselli:
Not sure I would add it to the positives, possibly quite the contrary. There are positives and negatives. Certainly the expansion of the hobby is a good thing, as is the more readily available, and cheaper tools, and advancement in processing methods. The negative from purely my perspective is that the use cases are too broad. Someone who does planetary or lunar has different objectives and hurdles than someone that does deep sky. Similarly, someone who does astro landscapes is different, and someone who operates a $100K setup at a remote site has different objectives and challenges than someone operating a cheap setup in their backyard. While the number of people were small, it was easy to make connections in the community regardless of what you were doing. With the larger number of users, finding those that have things in common with you is harder. It is becoming more like Flickr.
|
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.
andrea tasselli:
Not sure I would add it to the positives, possibly quite the contrary. Why wouldn't we want more people to be enjoying the hobby we enjoy? More people to be in favor of reducing light pollution, more people to drive investment in businesses that provide the tools for out hobby, more people to think about new ways to do things that improve the hobby, etc. For a long while this hobby was an old man's game, and the clubs and companies associated with it were dying (literally) out. I think it's ok to say there are aspects of having more people in the hobby that you don't like without being in favor of keeping the hobby small and insulated. I definitely want the hobby to grow and thrive with new generations of people enjoying 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.
