IOTD 2.0

I love to see amateur pictures that in my eyes deserve IOTD and TP much more than professional data. Amateur photographers spend maybe 10 to 70 hours + editing and planning objects.
But I also think there should be room for all of us here at Astrobin😀

I think one of the main outcomes of the last thread was that professional data only gets IOTD when it is exceptionally processed (and only 0.3% of all IOTDs ever were from professional data). Please look at the raw image in the comments of today's IOTD (or in the last thread). Astrophotography is more that just acquisition, in my opinion processing is just as important, or in some cases even more crucial to get a nice image.
While I agree that different rules should apply for backyard vs professional data and the majority of IOTDs should be amateur work (which is already the case), exceptional processing like todays IOTD is very deserving of this award. Maybe this means that there are two professional data IOTDs in one week, but so what. IOTD isn't some highly paid prize that one mentions in their resumé, it is just a nice award that exhibits a beautiful picture of our night sky. I am just happy to see a nice picture every time I open this website. Of course I hope to get better in AP to get one of my images posted there too, but until that happens I won't be angry just because someone won this award by using professional data…

With today's IOTD we have gone from 0.38% to 0.43% of IOTD awarded to professional data in the last 5 years. This truly shines a light on this injustice! Sorry, this feels like recency bias to me.

If we had one day per week (for example) for best professional data in the last week (including processing of data you have bought but did not capture yourself), and the rest of the week non professional data, this would save all these arguments.

I know I am wasting my time saying this though as it's never going to change and more arguments will crop up every now and then.

Carole

I am a big fan of Astrobin. Since joining 2 ½ years ago I have visited the website nearly everyday, often more than once. I have enjoyed wonderful astrophotographs, learned a lot, and made many friends. Despite all of the many positives of my Astrobin experience, however, the loud and contentious public arguments about the IOTD have made Astrobin much less enjoyable. As you all know, this vitriolic debate has reappeared again and again. Last February one of my images was honored at IOTD and became the focus of outrage that argued that it was unworthy of recognition. The argument grew louder and louder, with attacks spreading from Astrobin to my personal photography website used by me and my family.

In my judgment, at the heart of the controversy is the notion that IOTD is a competition to recognize “the best” image. As we all know, “best” is a wholly subjective term, not easily defined by quantitatively exact criteria. As a result, the IOTD argument is regularly resurfaced, often by those who feel that their images were unjustly overlooked for recognition. I propose that we think about the IOTD differently. Rather than recognition of “the best image,” let’s make it a recognition of “notable images” that we would like to bring to the attention of the whole AB community. There are many types of images that would be ‘notable.’ Here is a partial list of images that could be considered ‘notable.’

·      An exceptional demonstration of processing skill, which is what we see in the 05-23-20 IOTD by Connor Matherne and the IOTD on 05-16-20 by Alberto Pisabarro. There is a saying in golf, “It is the indian, not the arrow,” which means that no matter how high quality the equipment, the operator is still the most important contributor to success (or failure). We have all seen less-than-distinguished imagery created from professional data. Connor and Alberto are highly skilled astrophotographers that create exceptional imagery no matter what data they have (just look at their galleries).

 ·      A strong RGB DSO image created on the balcony of an apartment in a urban white zone, where the photographer spent months gathering 50 or 60 hours of data to overcome the light pollution. There are many AB contributors who face these challenges and would like to see what dedication and skill can produce.

 ·      A remarkable deep, detailed image created with the state-of-the-art amateur technology (e.g., images created with data from Chilescope, Deep Sky West, etc.). Many of us would enjoy seeing what the best gear and conditions can produce.

·      A planetary, solar, lunar, or other solar system event that is important, unusual, or periodic. We have exceptionally talented planetary, lunar, and solar amateur astrophotographers contributing to AB who are always documenting such events.

·      A strong image from someone who has a large body of work. This would be a way to introduce everyone to members who have been longtime contributors to amateur astronomy.

·      An image of a new discovery made by an AB amateur. A few AB contributors are making significant contribution to science.

·      Images that are “first time displayed on AB.” There are countless exotic objects and phenomena.

 ·      Images from one of the early AB pioneers, such as J-P Matsavainos and Sara Wager, to introduce new member to those who help established AB and helped set the standards for amateur astrophotography.

 ·      and many other types of “notable” images.

I believe that the purpose of the IOTD should be to bring to the attention of the AB audience things that are worth knowing and recognizing. AB is very rich and fast moving. It is easy to miss many wonderful images, collections, events, and people. With this approach, the role of the selection committee could be both editorial and a judgment of quality. The take away of my note is that our community is rich with talented, passionate people. Let’s celebrate them and their work. Let’s remember the reason we came to Astrobin in the first place . . . to share our view of the Universe.

Andy 01:
TW - I didn't pick this one, I was tempted but another of my colleagues got in first!  IMO it's a fabulous close up image of a very popular target for amateurs - something we will never otherwise see.
Congratulations to Connor for bringing this rare jewel to our attention!

Hahaha, I will take even tempting you into picking it as high praise. Thanks for the kind words Andy

Also Gary, as always, coming in with the words of wisdom

What Gary said is the embodiment of the IOTD! Thanks, Gray, I shall put that up in the FAQ!

Gary Lopez:
I am a big fan of Astrobin. Since joining 2 ½ years ago I have visited the website nearly everyday, often more than once. I have enjoyed wonderful astrophotographs, learned a lot, and made many friends. Despite all of the many positives of my Astrobin experience, however, the loud and contentious public arguments about the IOTD have made Astrobin much less enjoyable. As you all know, this vitriolic debate has reappeared again and again. Last February one of my images was honored at IOTD and became the focus of outrage that argued that it was unworthy of recognition. The argument grew louder and louder, with attacks spreading from Astrobin to my personal photography website used by me and my family.In my judgment, at the heart of the controversy is the notion that IOTD is a competition to recognize “the best” image. As we all know, “best” is a wholly subjective term, not easily defined by quantitatively exact criteria. As a result, the IOTD argument is regularly resurfaced, often by those who feel that their images were unjustly overlooked for recognition. I propose that we think about the IOTD differently. Rather than recognition of “the best image,” let’s make it a recognition of “notable images” that we would like to bring to the attention of the whole AB community. There are many types of images that would be ‘notable.’ Here is a partial list of images that could be considered ‘notable.’

·      An exceptional demonstration of processing skill, which is what we see in the 05-23-20 IOTD by Connor Matherne and the IOTD on 05-16-20 by Alberto Pisabarro. There is a saying in golf, “It is the indian, not the arrow,” which means that no matter how high quality the equipment, the operator is still the most important contributor to success (or failure). We have all seen less-than-distinguished imagery created from professional data. Connor and Alberto are highly skilled astrophotographers that create exceptional imagery no matter what data they have (just look at their galleries).

 ·      A strong RGB DSO image created on the balcony of an apartment in a urban white zone, where the photographer spent months gathering 50 or 60 hours of data to overcome the light pollution. There are many AB contributors who face these challenges and would like to see what dedication and skill can produce.

 ·      A remarkable deep, detailed image created with the state-of-the-art amateur technology (e.g., images created with data from Chilescope, Deep Sky West, etc.). Many of us would enjoy seeing what the best gear and conditions can produce.

·      A planetary, solar, lunar, or other solar system event that is important, unusual, or periodic. We have exceptionally talented planetary, lunar, and solar amateur astrophotographers contributing to AB who are always documenting such events.

·      A strong image from someone who has a large body of work. This would be a way to introduce everyone to members who have been longtime contributors to amateur astronomy.

·      An image of a new discovery made by an AB amateur. A few AB contributors are making significant contribution to science.

·      Images that are “first time displayed on AB.” There are countless exotic objects and phenomena.

 ·      Images from one of the early AB pioneers, such as J-P Matsavainos and Sara Wager, to introduce new member to those who help established AB and helped set the standards for amateur astrophotography.

 ·      and many other types of “notable” images.

I believe that the purpose of the IOTD should be to bring to the attention of the AB audience things that are worth knowing and recognizing. AB is very rich and fast moving. It is easy to miss many wonderful images, collections, events, and people. With this approach, the role of the selection committee could be both editorial and a judgment of quality. The take away of my note is that our community is rich with talented, passionate people. Let’s celebrate them and their work. Let’s remember the reason we came to Astrobin in the first place . . . to share our view of the Universe.

Thank you very much for your kind words Gary, you have made me blush, for the rest I am totally in tune with those that you have exhibited in your comment.
Best regards.
Alberto

Adam Landefeld:
With today's IOTD we have gone from 0.38% to 0.43% of IOTD awarded to professional data in the last 5 years. This truly shines a light on this injustice! Sorry, this feels like recency bias to me.

Good Morning!

Actually 4 out of the last 7 IOTD in this week have been made with own equipment in the own garden or mobile, 3 have been downloaded and just "processed" - using data from commercial remote scopes and pro-data. So it is 43% based on the original definition, not following YOUR very own expression with just data being used from scientific sopces/pro data. You're ignoring what the OP meant.

There are cca 30% of pro data in top pick (last 60 checked) which is  in my estimation covers 60-80% of all submitted pro data. On the other hand amateur data represented in less then 1% (compared to all amateur submissions - estimate only) in top pick and I think the reason is not because there are no good amateur pics.Of course almost half of the top pick is pro data, this will be reflected on IOTD as well.

There are definitely 2 parties here, those who likes this direction and who doesn't, and this issue will pop-up again timte to time, and it cannot be handled with comments like "enough" or "boring" or humiliate  each other by making jokes, because there are good arguments pro and con.

There should be a compromised solution, because the current situation seem not working.

I don’t know how you have chosen to categorise the last 60 top picks but I found your assertion that 30% were from “pro data” to be a little surprising. So I thought I’d repeat the exercise.  I found that the last 60 TPS were categorised as follows.

27 - Backyard
7 - Traveller
21 - Own remote observatory (Chilescope = 5, DSW = 5, E-EyE = 2, Other own remote = 9)
2 - Public Amateur Data
2 - Pro Data (Mount Lemmon, Hubble)
1 - Not specified

By my reckoning the pro data is only 3.33% of the last 60 Top Picks.

Elisabeth Milne:
By my reckoning the pro data is only 3.33% of the last 60 Top Picks.

For me everything is pro which is not amateur astrophotography, which means the owner of the picture is operating his own equipment (remote or not, is not relevant. If one is paying for a service in the end to end process or using something which is not own source it is something else. (Dont get me wrong, I like both and I do both and that's why I know it is a big difference., it has sense to differentiate.)

From that perspective the "cca 30%" is a correct number.

Great discussions and agreed: but why stop there. If you didn't make some portion of your equipment it is pro. You just purchase everything set it up and go. Then complain about how unfortunate your conditions are, and how difficult operating from your back yard is. Given that very few here have actualy made any portion of their gear, or written any of their code, the pro data distinction seems irrelevant ...its all pro...

Might be better to sit back and enjoy the great images on Astrobin and not be so concerned about data from your pro equipment verses data from someone elses pro equipment...

Elisabeth Milne:
By my reckoning the pro data is only 3.33% of the last 60 Top Picks.

For me everything is pro which is not amateur astrophotography, which means the owner of the picture is operating his own equipment (remote or not, is not relevant. If one is paying for a service in the end to end process or using something which is not own source it is something else. (Dont get me wrong, I like both and I do both and that's why I know it is a big difference., it has sense to differentiate.)

From that perspective the "cca 30%" is a correct number.

Maybe the difference between the two categories is not as clear cut as it seems?  I keep my equipment at Sierra Remote Observatories.  I chose it, own it, and fly or drive there to install and service it.  I run each piece of software daily to capture the data that I process.

When something breaks, if I cannot get there, the common process is that I will contact the onsite staff and we will be on the phone/FaceTime to resolve.   I’m generally telling them what to do and we troubleshoot together,  but sometimes they know more than I do about a particular piece of equipment.   Often my instructions are “turn the wrench 1/16th of a turn...”. But other times I’ve relied on their knowledge.

I may move the scope to Chile but I believe the process will be the same.  I won’t be able to get to the scope but maybe once per year, but intend to follow the same process.

I’ve had a couple of top picks in the last 60 days - I wonder where mine were slotted in this analysis?