To disclose or not to disclose, that is the question.......

NOTE: This has the potential to be a contentious topic so please try to keep any discussion civil.

I am not suggesting that there is a right or wrong way to do things but I have to wonder what the consensus is, if any.

I think if you are at all competitive by nature then this is something to grapple with. I certainly don't think that giving the basic info that the bin likes is anything close to revealing all of your skills and things you've learned along the way. If you are making money through the hobby in some way then certainly you'd want to keep a competitive advantage. I know for me, if it weren't for all the generous people, from YouTubers to the programmers that create wonderful free software, my learning curve would have been a lot slower. I think that fact alone should be enough incentive to share techniques and help others who are not as advanced in the hobby.

I would add that there can be many motives for including or not including details and there is no way to know what the reasons an imager may have had for not providing details.

These could range from the ethically sketchy (such as using parts of someone else's image or heavily editing the image) to the totally benign ( just not wanting to take the time to enter the details).

I suspect the totally benign is WAY more common…..

This is not just a vanity site, but a place for everyone to learn. I would not be in the hobby if not for the tidbits I pick up on Astrobin. Even filling out the acquisition form leaves plenty of ambiguity, with details unsaid. Listing Pixinsight or Photoshop gives nothing away, as there is an infinite number of ways to use those tools, But I'm certainly glad some folks will add additional information on occasion.

I don’t think it is necessary or reasonable for the author to disclose all details, but I would like to know if the image is altered by generative AI tools such as BlurX. I am amazed by its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it involves creative AI guess work on the details.

Yuxuan:
I don’t think it is necessary or reasonable for the author to disclose all details, but I would like to know if the image is altered by generative AI tools such as BlurX. I am amazed by its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it involves creative AI guess work on the details.

I would agree that in the days of AI, revealing processing information is even more important and which AI was used is equally important.

For example, astro-specific AI like BlurX is much less likely to generate false detail than AI that is more oriented to terrestrial photography since it is trained on astro images instead of terrestrial images.

Your post also points out the fact that revealing some types of information is more important and more helpful, informative, and revealing than other types of information.

For example, the fact that one used Pixinsight or NINA or SGP is probably not that important since such a large percent of imagers use those anyway but knowing that things like BlurX or Star Spikes Pro or Topaz (to name a few) were used is more important for the viewer to know about since those have a much larger potential impact on an image (depending on how they are used).

Having said that, clearly the most critical information is the optics used and the exposure times, filters, and quantities as that is an excellent guide for others. I consider that a minimum and don't pay much attention to images that lack that basic information, especially now that Salvatore has such an easy to use system for inputting that detail.

We are constantly told that the Astrobin awards are not a competition (yeah right!). But accepting that statement at face value, what then is their purpose if not to educate and serve as references? If an image winning a badge does not have an explanation of how it was created, it serves no useful purpose to anyone other than its creator.

Yuxuan:
I don’t think it is necessary or reasonable for the author to disclose all details, but I would like to know if the image is altered by generative AI tools such as BlurX. I am amazed by its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it involves creative AI guess work on the details.

BlurXterminator (or the rest of the Xterminator suite) is not generative "AI". It's an unfortunate reality that when people refer to "AI" these days they generally mean generative AI, but that's not what the Xterminator suite is.

Jonathan S.:
Yuxuan:
I don’t think it is necessary or reasonable for the author to disclose all details, but I would like to know if the image is altered by generative AI tools such as BlurX. I am amazed by its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it involves creative AI guess work on the details.

BlurXterminator (or the rest of the Xterminator suite) is not generative "AI". It's an unfortunate reality that when people refer to "AI" these days they generally mean generative AI, but that's not what the Xterminator suite is.

Can you go a little deeper into what the difference really is? It's a very broad and fuzzy line in my mind.

Tony Gondola:
Jonathan S.:
Yuxuan:
I don’t think it is necessary or reasonable for the author to disclose all details, but I would like to know if the image is altered by generative AI tools such as BlurX. I am amazed by its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it involves creative AI guess work on the details.

BlurXterminator (or the rest of the Xterminator suite) is not generative "AI". It's an unfortunate reality that when people refer to "AI" these days they generally mean generative AI, but that's not what the Xterminator suite is.

Can you go a little deeper into what the difference really is? It's a very broad and fuzzy line in my mind.

It adds (or alters) information in your image using what it machine-learned from other images. I don’t see what’s the fundamental difference with other generative AI’s, except that in this case its creation is integrated with your own image, instead of a standalone image. But I digress here; I still would like its use to be disclosed (which many authors are already doing.)

Tony Gondola:
Jonathan S.:
Yuxuan:
I don’t think it is necessary or reasonable for the author to disclose all details, but I would like to know if the image is altered by generative AI tools such as BlurX. I am amazed by its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it involves creative AI guess work on the details.

BlurXterminator (or the rest of the Xterminator suite) is not generative "AI". It's an unfortunate reality that when people refer to "AI" these days they generally mean generative AI, but that's not what the Xterminator suite is.

Can you go a little deeper into what the difference really is? It's a very broad and fuzzy line in my mind.

BlurX, StarX, and NoiseX are neural network based models that perform convolution; they don't create new detail, they just use neural nets to speed up the math process that happens behind the scenes.
Generative AI on the other hand is, well, generative. The whole point of them is "create" something "new".

Yuxuan:
Tony Gondola:
Jonathan S.:
Yuxuan:
I don’t think it is necessary or reasonable for the author to disclose all details, but I would like to know if the image is altered by generative AI tools such as BlurX. I am amazed by its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it involves creative AI guess work on the details.

BlurXterminator (or the rest of the Xterminator suite) is not generative "AI". It's an unfortunate reality that when people refer to "AI" these days they generally mean generative AI, but that's not what the Xterminator suite is.

Can you go a little deeper into what the difference really is? It's a very broad and fuzzy line in my mind.

It adds (or alters) information in your image using what it machine-learned from other images. I don’t see what’s the fundamental difference with other generative AI’s, except that in this case its creation is integrated with your own image, instead of a standalone image. But I digress here; I still would like its use to be disclosed (which many authors are already doing.)

It "alters" information in the same way stretching does. The information already exists within your image and the process it performs could be done in more traditional ways, it would just be slower and less precise. But it's not adding or creating new information, it's just manipulating information that already exists.
I still think it should be disclosed along with the rest of the acquisition details, but there is an important distinction to be made between traditional neural networks and generative AI.

Oh, here we go again! Time to grab my bag of salted cashews.

what I think about this is, if you're trying to make images that are more art than science anyway, details of image creation have no need to be disclosed.

if, on the other hand, it is meant to contribute to science and not art, details on the major processing steps should be *required to be shown; by major processing steps, I mean anything that can manipulate the data so much so that it doesn't completely match the original raw data, in the detail; color can be messed with, that's fine, because color is pretty subjective anyway, but not detail.

*if processing steps are not disclosed, I think the APer should at least show a small comparison of the raw data, before (autostretched) and after processing, in the description, to give an idea how destructive (or non-destructive) the processing was and in what way, like what Bray and similar APers have done sometimes for new discoveries

so, that is what I think, my 2 cents

Oscar H.:
Time to grab my bag of salted cashews.

what I think about this is, if you're trying to make images that are more art than science anyway, details of image creation have no need to be disclosed.

You have done it now (made me hungry for cashews - and there is a Costco sized jar sitting in the cupboard).

I see your point but I am not sure I agree since the more artistic an image is, the more likely it is to have used some process that significantly modifies it. Whenever that happens, I think the viewer should be aware that was done.

Jonathan S.:
Yuxuan:
Tony Gondola:
Jonathan S.:
Yuxuan:
I don’t think it is necessary or reasonable for the author to disclose all details, but I would like to know if the image is altered by generative AI tools such as BlurX. I am amazed by its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it involves creative AI guess work on the details.

BlurXterminator (or the rest of the Xterminator suite) is not generative "AI". It's an unfortunate reality that when people refer to "AI" these days they generally mean generative AI, but that's not what the Xterminator suite is.

Can you go a little deeper into what the difference really is? It's a very broad and fuzzy line in my mind.

It adds (or alters) information in your image using what it machine-learned from other images. I don’t see what’s the fundamental difference with other generative AI’s, except that in this case its creation is integrated with your own image, instead of a standalone image. But I digress here; I still would like its use to be disclosed (which many authors are already doing.)

It "alters" information in the same way stretching does. The information already exists within your image and the process it performs could be done in more traditional ways, it would just be slower and less precise.

How can atretching remove coma and field curvature? You need deconvolution at the very least. But suppose after a few hours of fiddling you arrived the same result as BlurX — what you generated in those hours is also data and information. Discounting them as such amounts to saying a sculptor does not generate anything but only removes rocks to reveal what was already there.

When I got to look through my first telescope in 1972 as a 2nd grader. The adults always took the time to answer any and all of my questions. Members in the Astronomy Club helped me build my first telescope. It was always the culture that old timers nurture the newbies. If you want to do a visual Messier Marathon with a nail at each end of the tube for a 0 power finder, I am your guy. With that said, I know I have helped several people achieve better results with capturing and processing, just as I received help as I was getting started in CCD/CMOS imaging. Personally, I know I will never make money with my Astrophotography, I will always lean to an open exchange of ideas and techniques. While AB has several members that are part of the Astronomical Industrial Complex (I rarely get to say that in a sentence…) From websites offering tutorials on processing, prints and products for the Astronomy community, employees of companies that make Astro products, etc. The vast majority of members are amateurs in the true sense with varying levels of skills and commitment. I fall into this category of membership. I have learned almost everything I know about IP from AB and a few YT videos. I think most are happy to answer any question if asked. For those that don't want to answer any questions are typically the members who have 300 followers and only follow 3. Usually a great indicator… The community is large enough there is always someone else willing to help!

I tend to give an executive summary of the aquisition and proccessing of a target. If anyone has a question or needs more info, that typically comes in the form of a comment or a PM with a more verbose response as needed…

Is it a good question. But I don't think either of the options for answer really reflect my views.

Astrobin is an incredibly helpful site, but it is not governed by an ethical or even scientific/technical code.

If it were then a) full details of the observing and processing would be appropriate, b) images would be peer-reviewed [the IOTD/TP/TPN system is more of a selected-peer assessment] and c) references provided to images that inspired or motivated the posted image. [This latter issue is my own biggest disappointment with the site.]

None of this happens, since AB is a broad church. It is used by some to promote their commercial interests, some as a social site, some to learn, some to help others and some as simply a vanity project - or any combination of these motivators.

As a user, I pick and choose who I wish to follow and spend time conversing with, learning from, and being inspired by. I am free to ignore the others. Yes, they may win awards, but awards systems are what they are. Just like AI-tools….

CS Brian

Brian Boyle:
It is used by some to promote their commercial interests, some as a social site, some to learn, some to help others and some as simply a vanity project - or any combination of these motivators.

Well, yes, all of those to varying degrees for different imagers (and these days, groups of imagers) but for me it is mainly a place to put my images where they can:

1) Be displayed properly - standard websites and photo websites are just not designed for astroimages so often do a poor job displaying them, much less providing information about them.
2) Be seen by people that appreciate images more because they know what they are looking at.

For me the above two are about 80% and the rest is social and educational. Nothing commercial and the only vanity is one's natural pride in producing a good image.

I do think that the awards system, despite it's inevitable flaws, is still worthwhile and overall tends to reward good images.

Brian Boyle:
As a user, I pick and choose who I wish to follow

Same here. Mainly I follow people I know personally or who might have similar equipment, share a remote site, or have other things in common. Plus a few who a true experts and therefore have things to teach others.

Some categories I never follow such as clearly commercial entities and imaging groups. I consider imaging groups to be a separate category of "imager" altogether and although they do some cool stuff, I like my images to be my images so I have no interest in cooperative image projects.

If you a posting your pretty space picture: Probably not.

If you are claiming a new discovery or something novel: Probably, yeah.

If someone asks you: Probably, yeah.

If you a posting your pretty space picture: Probably not.

If you are claiming a new discovery or something novel: Probably, yeah.

If someone asks you: Probably, yeah.

I agree, except, the third one depends on what they're asking for

As a beginner in this vast and wonderful hobby, I find it extremely useful and valuable when an image has extended details on the acquisition session, equipment, and processing software.

Looking at the equipment, I can quickly determine whether some images I like are within reach for my setup.
This allows me to discover new, interesting targets and gives me a rough idea of the quality I could aim for.
Seeing good images with a setup like mine keeps me excited and wanting to improve.
I don't need images to know I have so many things to improve, but I cannot emphasize enough how useful and motivating it is to see what others can do with similar equipment.

The same things apply to software and accessories.

Session details are also extremely useful to me as a beginner.
It allows me to try new things when planning my sessions and puts everything I mentioned above into perspective.

This information can be as valuable as reading or watching a tutorial.
It's all about discovery, excitement, and, most of all, learning from people with more experience.

If my images are not good enough compared to others, is it because I suck at this hobby, is it because I don't use my equipment correctly, is it because I don't spend enough time on a specific target, is it because I don't use specific filters, all of the above?

Seeing details points me in a direction I can try to improve.
It keeps the excitement going, as I can see how good my images could be, and it keeps the frustration out as I can see why my pictures aren't that great.

If I see a gorgeous image with 50 hours of integration time, I know I can't compete with 3 hours on the same target, making me want to keep spending more time with my telescope.
Otherwise, without any details about the session, I might think I'm not good enough.

So, thank you to everyone for taking care of filling out these forms and giving back some of your invaluable experience!

I don't think it's necessary to list out all of your processing steps for each image you upload; I certainly don't. However, if someone asks me how I did something, I'm happy to provide details so they can learn. IMO though, in the end it's your photo and your technique. If someone doesn't want to divulge anything, they are under no obligation to do so and I don't get upset if someone doesn't. There are plenty of resources and other photographers to learn from.

I like knowing when it's a "bought" image versus a photographer that set up the equipment in the driveway AND actually did the photography. No interest in the bought images at all.

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?

Related discussions