Image of the Day an Top Picks from remote Observatories?

You're not really going to start this all over again, really.

Bob Lockwood:
You're not really going to start this all over again, really.

It's a new year, why not a new complaint? haha

It's like the budget astrophotography group I'm in on Facebook. Every other week there's someone complaining about the definition of budget and how people shouldn't be allowed because they have nicer gear than the complainer. 

People aren't happy unless they're griping.

Since the IOTD/TP/TPNs are not really contests, although they may give the appearance of being contests (see the manifesto), method acquisition should be irrelevant.

if we have a separate category for remote, the next thing you know, people will be asking for backyard vs. remote, backyard observatory vs. backyard, narrow band vs. LRGB, collaborations vs individual, solar vs DSO etc.

So it becomes a hugely slippery slope.

From the FAQ:

“I feel that images acquired with expensive equipment / from pristine skies / from remote hosting facilities get awarded too often. Why isn't the IOTD/TP process split in categories?”

The IOTD/TP is not a competition for the best image, but a system to promote beautiful, interesting, peculiar, or otherwise amazing astrophotographs, with a focus on technical excellence. Large telescopes at pristine remote locations have a tendency to yield better images, to nobody's surprise. The goal is to promote astrophotography, awe people, and reach a wider community (IOTDs are often somewhat viral on social media): for this reason, there are no weight classes.

Moreover, drawing the lines to come up with categories would be very difficult indeed, and it would be a slippery slope leading to even more categories. For instance, what constitutes a “remotely acquired image” as opposed to a “backyard image”? Do we draw the line at "downloaded data"? Or at "remotely acquired with rented time"? What about "remotely acquired with own equipment"? What about "remotely acquired but from the shed on my property 100 yards from the house"? What about "backyard but I live in the desert at 2000 meters of elevation and my equipment is worth $500,000"?

Do we require a different category for people who travel 1 hour to a remote location? What if they drive 5 hours?

Do we require a different category for people who do manual guiding? What about film cameras?

Do we require different categories according to how expensive your equipment is?

Do we require different categories for deep-sky vs solar system objects? What about compositions? What about northern lights?

As you surely understand by now, this is quite complicated, and so far AstroBin has preferred to keep things simple.

The (Zombie? :happy-7 topic that will not die.  

Are the TP/IOTD awards perfect?  No
Are any awards anywhere for any endeavor perfect?  No
Does that mean they are not worthwhile?  Also no (IMHO, of course).

I think that the awards serve a useful purpose despite the totally unavoidable imperfections. 

As far as remote sites go, I have both a local backyard site (in a fairly dark site since I am retired) and a remote site. The reason is simply that my backyard is in the Pacific NW and as everyone knows that is cloudy and rainy 60-75% of the year! There are many others that live in cities because they have to and remote is their only practical option for good images. Do we really want to remove what are often the better images from a competition for better images?

One could remove remote sites from the competition and then others would want to remove collaborations as well since comparing an image done with 10 scopes to one done with one may also not be fair.  Then what about rented scopes, purchased data, professional data? Maybe a limit on how much your system cost? The potential "banned" list is long and one could draw a line or lines but just where would one draw it/them?  There are as many opinions on that as there are imagers!

I think we have to leave it up to the judges with guidance from Salvatore as to what is appropriate for an award and what is not.  IMHO it is too complicated an issue to do it any other way.

But that is just my .02 (or maybe even .01)….

Yes, we are, because it's absolutely unfair to classify a multi-million euro telescope as a 'hobby telescope' and submit its images to platforms like AstroBin, which are meant for amateur astronomers. Getting 'Image of the Day' with equipment of that caliber has nothing to do with hobby-level astronomy. It's not about starting an argument—it's about standing up for the true spirit of the hobby and fairness in the community.

That is Pay to Win.

Salvatore Iovene:

Daniel Deifel:
That is Pay to Win.

Again, this is not about remote vs backyard. As this comment proves, it's about money. Does more expensive equipment correlate with better images? Statistically yes. Should the IOTD/TP have a section for "the rest of us" with a total equipment cost cap? I don't know but this raises more problems:

 - what is the cap? $1000? $5000?
 - how do we enforce this? It's easy to lie about what equipment was used
 - what goes into the budget? Obviously the equipment itself, like telescopes/cameras/filters/mounts, but what about other factors like spending $200,000 for a house in the mountains and then hosting a $3000 setup there?
 - what about other factors, like adjusting for purchase power in your country? $5000 is not much in Switzerland, but it's a lot in neighbor country Italy.
 - what about adjusting for life choices? $5000 is not much for a "double income no kids" couple, but it's a lot in other family situations

As you can see, I feel we can establish that the feeling of unfairness is mostly driven by the cost of the setup used, but I think we can also agree that there are other aspects that can lead to things feeling unfair.

In my opinion there is just no way to make things 100% equitably fair from that point of view, so it's better to leave everything open in a single category.

As you can see, there are a lot of IOTDs and a lot of Top Picks that are acquired with mid-range equipment.

Thank you for your detailed response, but I believe the core issue here isn’t about trying to make things 100% equitable or creating rigid cost caps—it’s about preserving the spirit of what platforms like AstroBin represent for hobbyists. Yes, fairness is complex, and yes, equipment cost does correlate with image quality, but when the same high-end setups dominate IOTD repeatedly, it creates a clear imbalance.Your points about the challenges of defining caps or accounting for factors like location or life choices are valid. However, that doesn’t change the fact that many amateur astronomers, who are working with limited resources and under far-from-ideal skies, feel increasingly left out of the spotlight. A platform meant for hobbyists should prioritize recognizing creativity, effort, and resourcefulness over raw spending power.While it’s true that some mid-range setups do make it to IOTD, the reality is that those are exceptions. The overall trend shows a clear bias towards ultra-high-end equipment, which is far from accessible for most hobbyists. Leaving everything open in a single category might feel 'fair' on paper, but in practice, it alienates a significant part of the community.

Salvatore Iovene:
In my opinion there is just no way to make things 100% equitably fair from that point of view, so it's better to leave everything open in a single category.

As you can see, there are a lot of IOTDs and a lot of Top Picks that are acquired with mid-range equipment.

I totally agree!  

I am in a somewhat intermediate position with most imaging rigs being cheaper than mine and located in less ideal places and yet there are still a lot of setups that cost far more than mine and sit on top of a mountain in Chile. For that reason I can see the argument from both sides.

I would also point out something that has not been mentioned and that is that the amount one has spent on equipment is not only about how much money one has to spend. There are two other factors besides raw wealth:

1) How willing is an imager to spend their hard-earned money on equipment? This can be a measure of enthusiasm for the hobby - something that arguably should be encouraged, not discouraged.
2) How long has it taken to accumulate the equipment?  Someone that has taken 30 years to accumulate equipment (I fall into that category) can not really be compared to someone who has taken two years to spend the same amount.

The short version is that making any contest (or any judgement, for that matter) that is seen as  fair by everyone is impossible.  With all it's flaws, the IOTD/TP process is a reasonable approach and although Astrobin would be less contentious without it, it would also be way less interesting.

I know I've said this for years, but I think 2025 is the year I finally do additional contests (actual contests, no "it's not a contest" contests) :-)

I'm thinking about a new section for custom community contests (i.e. some will be operated by AstroBin and be official, some by sponsors who will offer prizes, some by community members for fun).

The idea is that there could be any number of contests, each with its own rule. So, if you want, you can create a contest for "Images of M31 acquired from Bortle 9 with a sub-$1000 setup", or whatever you want, really, as it's your contest, your rules.

I need to figure out how not to make it too big of an aspect on AstroBin tho. I know that some people already think that AstroBin is too "contest-centric", tho that's not my wish for it to be, as I see it more of a way to record data about astrophotography, keep your gallery, and social network with others.

I'll need a few more months to work on the app version of AstroBin, then that's the next big thing on my agenda!

Daniel Deifel:
Yes, we are, because it's absolutely unfair to classify a multi-million euro telescope as a 'hobby telescope'

Can you clarify just who is using this multi-million euro telescope.??? From what see, everyone using scopes in Chile-Spain or Namibia, are using their own equipment.

The most sane counter argument for all of this I can think of…  Is the fact that you can just as easily go purchase the same data you are complaining about and have the same chance as competing as those who you claim have an unfair advantage.   There is no gatekeeping here.  Also, it's easily overlooked that technically you're not supposed to submit multiple versions of the same data sets to IOTD, yet TS live's M83 has probably been through the IOTD queue more times than we have images in our galleries. 
These companies thrive because of less fortunate folks who live in light polluted areas.  To take that away simply defeats the whole purpose of giving everyone a fair chance at IOTD.    And if I'm being honest here, TS live isn't even all that great.