Let me open a can of worms: are images processed from Hubble data "first class citizens"?

Hello Salvatore. I have no problem viewing and enjoying Hubble data and remotely gathered images on Astrobin. I love seeing these images. However, for me personally, I do give more weight and respect to the "back yarders" who own and set up their rigs. I mean no disrespect to processors of Hubble data or remote imagers. I agree with you that setting up and tearing down IS tedious and repetitive. I don't know if I'd call it simple though. It's a critical part of the process. A great backyard image begins with a meticulous set up. There are members here with very expensive and complicated gear, I really appreciate their dedication, know-how, and results. Other members, like myself, will only ever be able to afford very modest entry level equipment. We work diligently on our set ups to get the very most out of our lower end gear.  In short, I do believe that I give more "props" to the hands-on imagers. I don't know that I'd call remote imagers or Hubble processors second class. I know they work hard at the art and I appreciate their results. I believe they absolutely deserve to show off their work here. As for them being eligible for pic of the day, that's a tough one. I would lean toward no, they should not be eligible. I think Image Of The Day should go to imagers who own and operate their gear and create the image from start to finish.

I really enjoy seeing both. As a user of low-end equipment, I appreciate the challenge it is to acquire good data and produce a decent image even with inexpensive gear, but I love seeing what can be done with high-end equipment because it is both beautiful and inspiring. I think a good mix for image of the day is the right approach. Some images deserve it simply because they are stunning no matter how they were acquired. Some images deserve recognition because the target was difficult. And some deserve it because the image is simply unique (like the one that was recently a runner-up, showing Venus, Mars, and Jupiter along with a star map simulation–I thought that was just cool). Variety is the spice of life.

Someone once said to me that 'you win no prizes for data acquisition'.  That is the truth in the scenario.
Ultimately I think it is a choice of the site to decide whether it is a site for a 'type' of image producer or a global forum for excellence.  I vouch for the latter but maybe with a few caveats.

I have been/am involved in all types of imaging dabbling with pro data for a bit to simply have data to practice with.  However some of the results where pleasing and won an IoD.  I would add this data is generally available to anyone who would like to acquire and process so it is not the realm of the elite guys only.  I am also subscribing to DSW and have my own set up.  Arrangements like DSW in all honesty are no different to my home set up (other than the scale) with similar quality gear etc.  The key for me with this arrangement is the dark sky location.  In todays connected world I see no reason why any imager should have to be disadvantaged by location.  In fact I have set my own observatory up semi-remotely now in a field as far from any life as I could manage while still getting electric there.

That said I do feel a little more pride when despite my local disadvantages Vs DSW for example I manage a good image.  The reality is that the ratio for me is 1:5 homeSW.  I enjoy the hobby and thus at my own expense found a great solution that provides me access to good quality amateur data.  Otherwise I would have a hobby I could rarely partake in due to location!

Moving onto IoD that's more interesting.  I know you are talking about IoMonth and IoYear as well under new format.  I think the latter options is where differentiation would benefit.

For IoD I think the best image should win.  This however could consider all sorts such as the effort/amount of data/location/rarity/quality of course and more.  Ultimately the judges should pick the best image based on an agreed set of criteria (this makes it less personal and ensures different judges can apply the same criteria).  However in the scenario where a pro image and a 'home' image are drawn I would favour selection of home image.  If the pro image is clearly the winner though go with it.

On IoM and IoY however I would like to see categories - not thought them through but would include Pro data, DSO (maybe split to Neb and Gal), solar system, ?newcomer? etc.  From each of these categories a overall winner could then be selected.

To summarise - (in my view) my the site a forum for all with recognition of excellence across the board.  Specific categories for pro data ensure the excellent work here is always acknowledged and if its the best image that month/year it wins.  But ultimately rewarding the effort of those collecting non-pro data and producing excellent images should be encouraged and slightly, if only margin ally favoured.

 Promote and support all excellence and provide a forum with acknowledgement for all image producers.  But going back to the opening of 'you win no prizes for data acquisition' well its true - but if you make a judging criteria for consideration then you have the 'differentiator' required in the judging process to slightly favour the non-pro data.  Ultimately if the Pro data image is outstanding all the other attributes will outweigh the % allocated for collection anyway.  IE it would still win unless against an outstanding amateur image.

Cheers

Paddy

In truth, I think Luca just said it best.
Perhaps there should be a poll of some sort placed in this forum on this topic?

I think you'll get opinions, not answers. It largely comes down to where you personally feel the worthwhile challenge is. I'm still struggling with the hardware side of things so I'm biased towards images taken by others who have or are coming to grips with their equipment: folks who are capturing their own photons. That said, I can understand that once you get the gear sorted and the routine down, then collecting light might become a pretty dull, mechanical process. Processing has its own learning curve and certainly the end result is more impressive than a bunch of raw lights. :-)  But … you could learn processing without ever working through the difficulties of keeping photons streaming onto a little silicon wafer with great mechanical precision. In many ways, I think that effort is really the earthy soul of AP.

I am comparatively new to all this (couple of years, and mainly UK skies  ) but it seems to me that one of challenges (for me at least) is choosing kit that works together, can be set up in the cold and dark, and getting all the 'moving parts' (hardware, electronics, optics, software) to work well under these conditions (including fighting the dew!) . So data collection is  a good half of the story. I have never processed 'pro-data' but am happy to believe its as hard as processing your own... so hats off to those who do great jobs there.
Is it possible to introduce  some categories here so we can easily see whether it was 'backyard' or 'pro'?

For me, this is two hobbies in one …. taking the images to collect the data, and processing the data into publishable images.  Using Hubble data skips the first step.  It still takes skill to process the data - hubble or stuff you collect yourself. But, I'm more impressed by someone who masters both parts of the hobby.

I also feel that data acquisition is half of the game and, although I enjoy looking at them, images that skip that half by just processing professional or other people's data should be a separate category.   I rarely "like" them here even when I really admire them because I don't think they should be eligible for the same category of IOTD.  That may be old fashioned with so many people using remote obs and automated data collection where they may not even have to flick a switch to get going, but maybe it is just envy, as I travel 100 miles each way to my dark site and setup almost every night I image.

If a distinction is to be made then I think that it should be limited to whether the data was collected using your own equipment or not, i.e. if an image was processed from a public data pool like Hubble, or captured using a remote public or professional telescope such as DSW, iTelescope, etc. then I think that this should either be be a separate category, or excluded from IOTD.

I see some posts in this thread that suggest a distinction even be made where someone has invested in their own 'remotely operated' observatories, where that may just mean an automated rig in their back garden. In my opinion if you own the equipment, but operate it remotely then I think that is fair game and the astrophotographer has every right to call it their image and be considered for IOTD. I am perhaps sensitive to this point as after several years of setting up then breaking down my rigs every imaging session, now that I'm retired and getting older it has become increasingly difficult (physical limitations of lifting my 10" Meade LX200 in the cold at 3;00am), so during 2016 I intend to install my scopes in an observatory. This will include some automation so that I can optimise the limited skies available to me in the UK. I envy those that live in counties with predictable weather and night after night of clear skies than can leave their rigs out night and day with little cause for alarm that the weather might catch them out. That will never be my experience in the UK, so it is either set up / break down every session, or put the rig in an observatory where the roof may be open and closed as conditions allow.

Having said all that, I'm not overly bothered about IOTD (I rarely look there) and I definitely do want to continue to see the fantastic images posted on AB that use public data pools as a resource. Seeing great astro images is more important to me than who wins….!!

Salvatore Iovene:
Or simplify like this?

1. Own equipment[/*]
2. Everything else[/*]

This should suffice for me and I assume it is easier to implement.

I think just the 2 categories 'own equipment' and 'everything else' is sufficient. I also wouldn't bother getting everyone to re-badge existing images, that is way too much hassle…..

I have respect for all that collect there own data I have and will spend many more nights sitting out in the cold cursing my equipment when its not doing what it should!
However - I think it comes down to what is the site about.
Categories deal with many of the repeating concerns and I agree that and excellent image acquired with your own data and effort should have some preference over professional data.  However it think there needs to be a distinction on professional data DSW and iTelescope or good examples.  I would personally not want to see these categorised and penalised, I may be slightly biased so take that on board as a user of DSW.  The reason is that while you could consider it commercial the equipment in use is readily available to all, in this scenario we just have a team of uses sharing a scope and some data.  The equipment is use is on par with that I use at home.  Where do you draw the line.  I have a remote observatory currently a five minute drive from my house to get the darkest sky I can.  This comes at a cost to me (renting the land) but in pursuit of the best condition I can get I see it worthwhile.  Likewise next year or maybe the year after I have the option to build on some land in Tenerife and may build an observatory there - will this mean that I am now considered pro if operating from UK.  The investment I make is in pursuit of excellence (one can only but try anyway) but once remote I am a (smaller scale) equivalent of DSW so some of the current thinking would push me into the pro category even though I am just a dedicated amateur.

The critical point for me is that in pursuit of excellence, improvement and consistent quality data I have decided to invest into a source for the betterment of my hobby.
If users of iTelescope, DSW and even archives such as hubble have no forum to display there work here then they will leave and go elsewhere.  There is a theme of people liking to look at the images but not thinking they should be IoD candidates seems to persist through this thread.  Consider if not provided with a forum you will no longer see them and your exposure to these images via AB will cease with those users likely heading of elsewhere.

Again I go back to my point on the sites intention - if it is a forum for astrophotography excellence then we have to accept all images and all should be considered for appropriate acknowledgement even if some weighting is applied to judging process.  The most excellent of images being acknowledged.
The alternate is that AB becomes a site for amateur astrophotographers only - I.E. [Subject to where the currently grey line is drawn] Only those who set up each night, obtain there own data, pack away then process being given the highest priorities and opportunities.

On the home user side I really do appreciate that a lot of effort goes into setting up and data acquisition and for those with less experience this can be a real challenge, however there is a tipping point for all where this process is locked down, well practiced, repeatable and not an issue.  At this point the data collection becomes less of an issue.  Many many people still will struggle with this in the early days but once practiced it does become less of an issue.  But the processing of data is, at least for me, the real key in producing the image.  This is irrelevant of the data source, the pain experienced in collecting the data etc.  I have (I hope passed my tipping point and have a stable set up) but I see my processing as the area that will always be improving requiring more effort and knowledge to continually improve.  Once your set up is within a few percent of optimum it becomes a stable 'issue' that will require little additional work or improvement.  But processing is a different matter, personally I feel that if you think you have it mastered then that's the point when you should pack it all in.  I learn everyday and now 99% of my effort goes into the processing and the rest is into data collection.  When you start the hobby you may spend 90% of your time on set up and acquisition but this will change with experience.  The net output is always about the best possible image for me.

Sorry bit of a ramble in hindsight but mindful of what the sites intentions are whether via you own set up or remote we are all dedicated to the final production of the best images we can.  I invest in my hobby so I can produce the best images I am capable of.  Like many I am hampered by location still and DSW helps resolve some of these issues.  I see no reason why if a person with a passion and willing to spend there hard earned money to obtain data in the pursuit of excellence in their images should then be penalised through the fact they are in a poor location for imaging.

Finally I think in summary there are four issues-

1. What you like to see - I think Salvatore is already considering preferences - users should set preferences so that on the wall, email etc you can specify you do not want to see 'pro' images etc - preferences being the key word.  Each user should be allowed to decide what they see rather than being dictated to.  This ensures the site meets the interests of a wide range of users.  We are all grown up and being allowed to choose is far more preferable than being told what we can look at!
2. Awards/Acknowledgements - should remote/team/pro images be considered for IoD or equivalent?  My view is yes, with weighting if required.  I believe acknowledging excellence is the way forward and maintaining diversity would be good.  Could the awards be categorised - if required yes but this would be down to how many categories people want to maintain.
3. The categorisation of pro/remote/home would have to be very clear and could prove difficult to police.
4. AP excellence Vs Amateur data collection techniques and processing.

These are just my views but I like AB as it currently offers a full spectrum of AP it would be a shame to lose that.  I seek excellence in my images and am passionate about that - some of the suggestions seem to penalise my passion and how I have chosen to realise these [without moving to the Atacama Desert ] and ultimately that concerns me.

Paddy