NGC4372 - IOTD? AstroBin Platform open discussions community forum · Georg N. Nyman · ... · 27 · 1064 · 0

No competition? 

I would say a very well framed and resolved star field combined with an uncommon range of challenging objects.

Georg, I truly enjoy many of your works — they’re excellent.
But I believe we all need to admit that our kind of photography is closer to art — even when it serves astrophysics.

Personally, I’ve never liked the Mona Lisa much, and I’m even less excited by Malevich’s Black Square or Chagall’s red roosters.
And yet, those works continue to attract not only the public but also art experts with deep knowledge.
A 100-meter race can be judged by a photo finish, but figure skating includes marks for “artistic impression.”

Sorry if I’m not being as specific as you may prefer — but to me, it’s essential that we all recognize this field (and its competitions) are built on subjective opinions.

We may not personally agree that a certain image is outstanding, but questioning the judging system itself might also question the very spirit of what brings us together here — including the joy of sharing, discussing, and being part of this community.

Regards, Oleksiy

Thanks for asking Georg. I selected this image for IOTD because it is beautifully resolved, well-composed and balanced, offering a tight and uncommon perspective on a frequently imaged target. NGC 4372 is effectively framed and well balanced by Y Musca. This fresh viewpoint, along with a pleasing colour contrast combined with such a high level of technical execution, is the kind of image that can stand out to the judges and makes a strong impact. 

CS
Andy

Andy 01:
Thanks for asking Georg. I selected this image for IOTD because it is beautifully resolved, well-composed and balanced, offering a tight and uncommon perspective on a frequently imaged target. NGC 4372 is effectively framed and well balanced by Y Musca. This fresh viewpoint, along with a pleasing colour contrast combined with such a high level of technical execution, is the kind of image that can stand out to the judges and makes a strong impact. 

CS
Andy

Hi Andy,
i like that you come forward and tell us about why you promoted the image. It helps a lot to understand the reasoning behind the decision.
It brings me back to a discussion in some thread last year where I proposed that judges may provide some background about their decision along with the images they promote (technically a text box below the image). Because that gives the AB community valuable feedback of what makes an excellent image. Eventually, this is about learning from the most experienced Astro-photographers. @Salvatore Iovene , could that be done and do you consider this a useful addition?
CS, John

Are you implying that the existing portfolio of an AB member and the believe that he was "unlucky" in the past has or should have any impact on whether or not an image should promoted to IOTD?

(irrespective, i also like the images in the author's portfolio)

Hi John,

No.  I just wanted to express support for Jon's work, as I could imagine it might be quite deflating to have your first "gold star" singled out (after 60+ "Bronze/Silver stars") as "questionable".    

I do not know how the judges award an IOTD.  

But I understand that unlike NTP and TP, the judges actually know who took the picture.  If that also factored into their considerations (they are human after all and we are all prone to subconscious biases) then that's fine.  If not, and they judged it solely on its merits alone, that is fine too.  

Either way, I am happy to see it win an IOTD.   Just wanted to put in a supportive word for Jon's work on this thread. 

CS Brian

Hear we go again, it was picked, isn't that good enough.

Alan Brunelle:

Oleksiy Govorun:

Andy 01:
Thanks for asking Georg. I selected this image for IOTD because it is beautifully resolved, well-composed and balanced, offering a tight and uncommon perspective on a frequently imaged target. NGC 4372 is effectively framed and well balanced by Y Musca. This fresh viewpoint, along with a pleasing colour contrast combined with such a high level of technical execution, is the kind of image that can stand out to the judges and makes a strong impact. 

CS
Andy

Hi Andy,
i like that you come forward and tell us about why you promoted the image. It helps a lot to understand the reasoning behind the decision.
It brings me back to a discussion in some thread last year where I proposed that judges may provide some background about their decision along with the images they promote (technically a text box below the image). Because that gives the AB community valuable feedback of what makes an excellent image. Eventually, this is about learning from the most experienced Astro-photographers. @Salvatore Iovene , could that be done and do you consider this a useful addition?
CS, John

Personally, I believe it would be very helpful if the judges could occasionally explain why certain strong Top Picks don’t quite reach IOTD level.
Not as a matter of complaint — but because this kind of feedback could be extremely valuable for those of us who aim to grow.

Some of my own Top Picks, for example, I like more than a few of my IOTDs.
I’m fully aware that with more time and experience, I’ll see things differently — and hopefully more clearly. But as with painting or even sports, growth often comes through guided learning.

Even skilled artists once learned under great masters.
And in judo, for example, it took me years to understand what makes a perfect “ippon” — I had to be shown examples and learn from both my own mistakes and others'.

Of course, I’m not asking for full transparency or formal justification for every choice.
But maybe a special section or occasional write-ups explaining certain cases could be a great educational resource — and help avoid misunderstandings.

CS, Oleksiy

On the face of your request, what you are asking for seems perfectly reasonable.  But for the following reasons, I think too much transparency for the IOTD is not really helpful, nor really achievable.  First off, this is a human activity and perfection in the actions of the IOTD and the judges is not expected nor achievable.  I can't speak to all the facts, but is is not clear to everyone at this point that it is not uncommon that some images that are IOTD-worthy do not make the list?  And that the process is not so perfectly objective that they can publish the metrics to prove their choices are perfectly correct?  Yes, you may have preferred that others of your Top Picks were chosen rather than the IOTDs that you won.  Maybe the choice was down simply to that fact that they did not want to pick two Elephant Trunk images in a row.  Or maybe another person's image happened to be more appealing to the choice.  As you say, you feel that some of your images are better than others.  There is a human component to an art choice, and in those cases it was a different human than you, who made the choice that day.   Because of this, there really is little useful metric that the judges/committee could provide to you or others that is particularly useful in distinguishing Top Picks from IOTD.  Your ask is as if you want a checklist that you can fill out while you are processing an image, so that when you submit it to the judges, you can be assured that your submission will get chosen as an IOTD.  What kind of art is that if it comes down to that?  It is beginning to smell like there is no art in this at all, that it is just a contest, for no other purpose than to compete.  

Finally, once the judges/committee is told to provide justification metrics in each and every case, or even on a regular basis, then that will open the door to endless arguments and posts to the forums.  Then this "art" falls to the level of being a sport....

Yes, you're right — and I completely agree with you.
(Especially considering I wasn’t asking for strict judging metrics, but rather would find it interesting to see occasional notes about issues like over-noise reduction or blur artifacts.)
In the end, we can view the AstroBin IOTD system as a kind of exhibition with a competitive element — where each of us is really competing with ourselves, in our own "workshop."
And honestly, my second comment in this thread was probably an unnecessary attempt at compromise — one that can't fully satisfy anyone, and maybe isn't even needed.

Thanks again for pointing it out and helping me see that more clearly.

Alan Brunelle:

Oleksiy Govorun:
Yes, you're right — and I completely agree with you.
(Especially considering I wasn’t asking for strict judging metrics, but rather would find it interesting to see occasional notes about issues like over-noise reduction or blur artifacts.)
In the end, we can view the AstroBin IOTD system as a kind of exhibition with a competitive element — where each of us is really competing with ourselves, in our own "workshop."
And honestly, my second comment in this thread was probably an unnecessary attempt at compromise — one that can't fully satisfy anyone, and maybe isn't even needed.

Thanks again for pointing it out and helping me see that more clearly.

Thanks, and to clarify, I think because there are only so many "days" in a year, that Top Picks, and those who receive them can really see these as Top Level, without contrast to the IOTD.  I know that many others would not accept this, because they don't want to accept that (as in sport, there can be only one winner), but logically, as the numbers who participate here on AB increases, there can only be that conclusion.  After all, really IOTD serves more than just a contest.  It is a way for AB to display its "wares" to the public.  And for that reason alone, some images may be chosen for reasons other than being the best.  Examples might be choosing images of eclipses more so just after an eclipse because it is the global interest of the date.  The eclipse images will beat out say another very fine image of M31, for example.  

If the participation on AB increases 5X over the next five years and then the people here all get better, then will the number of worthy images not sky rocket?  What then?   Will the IOTD become the IOTH (Image of the Hour)?

Honestly, I don’t think there’s any real “problem” with the IOTD system — or if there is, it’s probably smaller than we make it out to be.
For me personally, AB is just the main place where I get to show the “fish I’ve caught.” Most of us will probably agree: showing our images to friends or even technically skilled people outside this hobby rarely brings real interest. It’s just too niche and complex.

That’s why it means a lot to receive comments from fellow astrophotographers who truly understand what goes into these images. And some of you know — I genuinely enjoy writing thoughtful comments on others’ work as well.

So, to sum it up: this whole topic feels a bit funny to me. If I had to rename it, maybe it would be:
“Today, the Sultan named me the favorite wife.” 

Just a light-hearted way of saying — let’s enjoy the recognition, share the joy, and keep supporting each other in this strange, beautiful hobby.

CS, Oleksiy

Oleksiy Govorun:
Personally, I believe it would be very helpful if the judges could occasionally explain why certain strong Top Picks don’t quite reach IOTD level.
Not as a matter of complaint — but because this kind of feedback could be extremely valuable for those of us who aim to grow.

I agree that if the judges can occasionally explain the reason of picking certain images, it will help others to better see why.  But does this really help those who "aim to grow"?  I kind of doubt.  For beginners, I think honest feedbacks can be very useful.  (Who can take honest feedbacks is another story.)  But when we talk about IOTD and TP, it's obviously a different level of discussion.

For IOTD, there are multiple judges.  They have different opinions and tastes.  And judges change and rotate in a yearly basis if my understanding is correct.  This kind of feedbacks from judges can only tell you what that specific judge (or that specific group of judges) favors.  And at the level of IOTD, such favor can be very subtle and can be quite different from judge to judge.  In my opinion, many TP are equally deserving to become IOTDs.  Which TP actually becomes one often depends on which judge happens to like it.  I believe all the judges like their IOTD picks for very good reasons. The true question here is: are their reasons the only possible set of good reasons?  Shouldn't the standard for good astro pictures evolve with time?  If it should, should the evolution be driven by IOTD judge's opinions?  Or by individuals' independent thinking and by individual's pushing boundary?  At the end, with IOTD judge's feedbacks, will some people just keep chasing after judges' tastes (which I can hardly describe as "growing") rather than pushing their own boundaries?   I think one should aim for high standards with his/her own artistic view of what high standards mean, rather than following judges' personal opinions.

The above is for IOTD (and also TP perhaps).  For beginners to grow, I think the guidelines of IOTD are sufficient.  If someone can give them feedbacks on why their images are not nominated (at the first stage) at all, that will be very useful (but I doubt this will ever happen).  For beginners, such feedbacks are very crucial.  At the TP/IOTD level, things are different.  For those who are no longer beginners, I strongly suggest you not to guide/judge your own growth on whether you win IOTD or not, let along chasing after judge's feedbacks in order to win your next IOTD.

Oleksiy Govorun:
“Today, the Sultan named me the favorite wife.” 

I think this is the best description of IOTD I've ever heard.  In full candour, I pretty much ignore IOTD & TP notifications that come through in the email feed or on the website.  Other than noting some of the same names crop up again and again, and the amusing sport of occasionally looking at how many hours with what monster of an "amateur" telescope, and from what remote facility...and then rolling the eyes and then moving on.

You can of course admire the technical skills in processing, and the pixel-peeping that must happen (in the production, and the judging, of images), but frankly it leaves me all a bit non-plussed.  Its amusing to see in all the many debates about IOTD that so many people say its not that important and is (rightly) not the point of this hobby, but no it mustn't change and should stay the way it is.  Anyone else struck by the contradiction in that?  Or reminded of Sayre's law?

If I may use a sailing analogy, its like looking at the America's Cup yachts - sure Larry Ellison & his like can spend hundreds of millions, the craft are exquisitely engineered with cutting edge materials, the crew are professionals and its a spectacle.  But for me Kenichie Horie is much closer to the spirit of sailing and exploration (look him up if you don't know who he is and what he's done in his life).

In fact, in the same way that members can choose to opt out of seeing advertising on Astrobin, I'd love it if it was possible to opt out of IOTD as the banner picture.  And if instead it was just a random image from the feed (or randomly from the folks you follow, or a random image liked by the folks you follow).  The search function is there for when I want to find out more about specific targets, the follow button is there for when I notice people doing interesting things (eg unusual targets, or using similar equipment or similar LP settings, or coaxing equipment to perform at superlative levels etc).

(And for the record, there's no sour grapes here - I image from a central urban location with restricted sightlines in one of the most light polluted parts of the world).

Here's to more Kenichi Horie-spirit in the world.

At risk of promoting an external event, if you’re keen to gain insight into how top astrophotographers evaluate and critique outstanding work, consider entering, or at least tuning in to the live judging of this year’s Astrophotography Prize on September 13th and 14th.

Across this years' event, five highly respected astrophotographers will rigorously assess and debate the merits of the top 25 shortlisted images in each of the four categories. You’ll hear them discuss details such as signal-to-noise ratio, colour palette, and data integration, as well as compositional choices, aesthetic impact, and innovation in approach.

These sessions are always lively and robust, offering a rare, behind-the-scenes look at how experienced practitioners weigh the balance between technical precision and artistic vision. Whether you’re aiming to refine your own imaging or simply deepen your appreciation of the craft, this is a great educational opportunity. You can also watch last year's judging here.