Back to forums

[RCC] Why is my Leo's Tripplet ignored from the IOTD Submitters

Request for feedback Galaxy
pmneoKyle GoodwinArun HBrian DiazBill McLaughlin
•85 replies•5.2k views
pmneo avatar
pmneo avatar
I am really proud about my Leo's Tripplet image with a very detailed tidal Trail:

https://app.astrobin.com/i/1m3ks5

I have found no image with details in the tidal trail like in my image, but it got 0 submitter votes yet

What is your opinon about my image?

CS
Philip
D. Jung avatar
D. Jung avatar
It's a great image. One thing I noticed is that you seem to have boosted the color saturation quite a lot which has led to some artifacts on the blue colored areas.
Well Written Insightful Respectful Concise
pmneo avatar
pmneo avatar
Ah, I see, you are talking about those?



Thanks & CS
Philip
Alex Nicholas avatar
Alex Nicholas avatar
I'm one of the 107 likes on this image. It's beautiful, but i agree with the above, the galaxies saturation is a bit to high, the starfield looks great, everything else looks great, just the colour saturation in the galaxies looks too high. 

For what it's worth, I've had top pick nominations on images where I honestly didn't think they were that great, but then a couple that i feel are quite good git next to no votes at all. 

It's tough to explain why an image may or may not do well. 

One of my TPN images got 0 votes in 2 days, I cropped 10% off the edges, posted a revision and it got 5 votes in 4 hours… make it make sense.
Engaging Supportive
Rainer Raupach avatar
Rainer Raupach avatar
Hi Philip,

The exposure time is definitely a standout feature of your image. The tidal stream is also a highlight in terms of SNR.

In my opinion, the image is completely over-processed in terms of deconvolution/sharpening and color. This results in some very strange details in both form and color within the galaxies. For example, the dust lanes in M65 & M66 are “bright orange,” which is far from a realistic representation of the actual details. On the other hand, the star-like regions of the galaxies appear completely soft and devoid of detail, giving them a very synthetic look. To me, the galaxies are a mix of having no details in the periphery and overly forced details in the center.

Take e.g. a look at https://www.capella-observatory.com/ImageHTMLs/Galaxies/LeoTripletPrim.htm as a reference. While that setup is obviously in a different league, it provides a realistic impression. If you mentally scale down the resolution of that image, you can get a reasonable expectation for an image taken with a 100mm refractor. Of course, that would naturally include fewer fine details than in the reference, but it would still retain more nuanced details than what appears in your processing.

Since you asked, I’ll be honest: there’s definitely more potential in your data. In my opinion, you were a bit too aggressive in your processing, which may have done more harm than good.

CS, Rainer
Well Written Insightful
pmneo avatar
pmneo avatar
Thank you Alex and Rainer. 

@Rainer Raupach you are right. I think I was too focused on that tidal trail instead of the galaxies itself. What is your opinion about this Version:


https://app.astrobin.com/i/1m3ks5?r=F

CS

Philip
Monty Chandler avatar
Monty Chandler avatar
It's a nice image, but backyard astro-photographers rarely get the nod.  History shows they appear to prefer the bought images.
Well Written
Arun H avatar
Arun H avatar
While the tidal tail is very detailed, at full magnification, the image shows an overuse of noise reduction and a certain blotchiness. In the presence of other very good images, submitters may have seen this as a reason not to advance the image. I would be very proud of this image if I had taken it as well.
Well Written Insightful Respectful Concise Supportive
Brian Diaz avatar
Brian Diaz avatar
Hi, everyone

the hamburger galaxy ( ngc3628) is beautiful , however too much cyan and  hide the galaxy core and details , also to much saturation and luminance
  maybe more focus

CS

Brian
Brian Diaz avatar
Brian Diaz avatar
Monty Chandler:
It's a nice image, but backyard astro-photographers rarely get the nod.  History shows they appear to prefer the bought images.

it's not true ,please don't start  the same discursion about the IOTD again
the IOTD no has preference for image that are bought 


"enjoy the journey and don't forget to look at  the stars"

CS
Brian
Alejandro Navarro avatar
Alejandro Navarro avatar
1.- I agree that your image is over processed, with a more natural approach I think it would definitely got bronce. 
2.- Besides that, I think astrobin are getting away from their principles. I felt that in the search for new stuff, they are awarding pictures that look way too different from the master you got. 
Pictures that really look outstanding, but that have too much photoshop, that paint too much some layers, just to make them appear with more presence. 
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I still prefer the images that looks great technically speaking, but not fat from what the master shows you when you apply STF.
And I'm not talking about palettes, I really stand the creativity with palettes. But when a very faint structure, became the main subject in the picture, to me, is not natural. 
(sorry if I made some mistakes with my english, is not my native language)
Engaging
TiffsAndAstro avatar
TiffsAndAstro avatar
I am really proud about my Leo's Tripplet image with a very detailed tidal Trail:

https://app.astrobin.com/i/1m3ks5

I have found no image with details in the tidal trail like in my image, but it got 0 submitter votes yet

What is your opinon about my image?

CS
Philip

+1 like from me it's fantastic
Vineet Panwalkar avatar
Vineet Panwalkar avatar
I am too new to astrophotography to give a constructive criticism like some others have. But I can certainly give a like since your triplet looks fantastic to my eyes and way better than what I have with my tiny Seestar s50.
Stjepan Prugovečki avatar
Stjepan Prugovečki avatar
Hi Philip, 
You have collected very respectful material , but, unfortunately you over processed it.  Rainer has more or less summarized area where you could improve. But , perhaps it is most important that you make an image that you like , without objective to get any kind of electronic token of recognition here as Top pick nomination, Top pick , etc. These tokens just reflect the preferences of few people that have to select some images from many.  They do reasonable jobs , but there are also cases where you ask yourself why this one yes and another not.   It is at the end of a day not a contest  or a race (at least I do not see it that way) . But even if it would be a race, the starting positions are so different . Your or mine chances to make technically better image than someone with reasonable processing skills with 24" scope somewhere in Namibia or Chille  are close to none. You can make nicer composition, different field of view , different palette choices or something like that , but hardly technically better image. 
Cs
Supportive
Salvatore Iovene avatar
Salvatore Iovene avatar
Alex Nicholas:
One of my TPN images got 0 votes in 2 days, I cropped 10% off the edges, posted a revision and it got 5 votes in 4 hours... make it make sense.

Consider that due to the way the UI for voting is paginated, images tend to get most votes when they are almost expired from the process, as they will be at the top with a counter that says how long is left until they can't be voted anymore. So it could simply be that your image got the votes when it was finally at the top of the first page.
Well Written Helpful Insightful
Salvatore Iovene avatar
Salvatore Iovene avatar
Monty Chandler:
It's a nice image, but backyard astro-photographers rarely get the nod.  History shows they appear to prefer the bought images.

This is demonstrably false tho.

Kyle Goodwin avatar
Kyle Goodwin avatar
Monty Chandler:
It's a nice image, but backyard astro-photographers rarely get the nod.  History shows they appear to prefer the bought images.

Nonsense.  I don't even know what you mean by "bought" images.  I own and operate my own observatory in a very normal sort of place (bortle 3, near sea level altitude, nothing special) and get plenty of top picks/nominations.
Kyle Goodwin avatar
Kyle Goodwin avatar
Hi Philip,

The exposure time is definitely a standout feature of your image. The tidal stream is also a highlight in terms of SNR.

In my opinion, the image is completely over-processed in terms of deconvolution/sharpening and color. This results in some very strange details in both form and color within the galaxies. For example, the dust lanes in M65 & M66 are “bright orange,” which is far from a realistic representation of the actual details. On the other hand, the star-like regions of the galaxies appear completely soft and devoid of detail, giving them a very synthetic look. To me, the galaxies are a mix of having no details in the periphery and overly forced details in the center.

Take e.g. a look at https://www.capella-observatory.com/ImageHTMLs/Galaxies/LeoTripletPrim.htm as a reference. While that setup is obviously in a different league, it provides a realistic impression. If you mentally scale down the resolution of that image, you can get a reasonable expectation for an image taken with a 100mm refractor. Of course, that would naturally include fewer fine details than in the reference, but it would still retain more nuanced details than what appears in your processing.

Since you asked, I’ll be honest: there’s definitely more potential in your data. In my opinion, you were a bit too aggressive in your processing, which may have done more harm than good.

CS, Rainer

I'd add that the stars show the overcooked saturation on the data also, especially in the red stars.  The detail of the tidal tail is very nice!  I sometimes make this same mistake when I focus on one aspect of the image I'm really interested in to the exclusions of the image overall.  It's a sort of "miss the forest for the trees" situation and it's hard to see about your own images when you're in the midst of processing them.  Once way I've found to help me avoid it is to put the image down after I think I'm "done", seek feedback from a couple trusted friends, and come back to it in a day or two and look at it with fresh eyes.  I also like to look at it next to an image which is just masters combined and screen stretched.  That helps give me perspective on if my processing has made any part of the image worse or if I've done something silly.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Arun H avatar
Arun H avatar
Salvatore Iovene:
Monty Chandler:
It's a nice image, but backyard astro-photographers rarely get the nod.  History shows they appear to prefer the bought images.

This is demonstrably false tho.


Hi Sal,

You should share the full data which also includes total submitted. When you do this, you see that backyard is underrepresented as a proportion of submitted. Of course, there are very good reasons for this. People travel or set up remote sites because what can be done from most backyards is limited, especially for L/RGB.  My only point here is that if you only share part of the data, people will start to question why. I don't think there is any conspiracy here. Submiters, judges, promoters etc. are all just doing their job. Which is to select, in their view, the best images, regardless of source. FWIW, if I could afford to go remote, I would too. It is just a fact of this effort.

Helpful Insightful Respectful
pmneo avatar
pmneo avatar
Alejandro Navarro:
1.- I agree that your image is over processed, with a more natural approach I think it would definitely got bronce. 
2.- Besides that, I think astrobin are getting away from their principles. I felt that in the search for new stuff, they are awarding pictures that look way too different from the master you got. 
Pictures that really look outstanding, but that have too much photoshop, that paint too much some layers, just to make them appear with more presence. 
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I still prefer the images that looks great technically speaking, but not fat from what the master shows you when you apply STF.
And I'm not talking about palettes, I really stand the creativity with palettes. But when a very faint structure, became the main subject in the picture, to me, is not natural. 
(sorry if I made some mistakes with my english, is not my native language)

Well the AutoSTF from the RAW Luminance of the galaxies is looking like this:


I have created a more galaxy core detailed version and less statured stars:

https://app.astrobin.com/i/1m3ks5?r=H

Thank you all!
Salvatore Iovene avatar
Salvatore Iovene avatar
Good point, thanks @Arun H! Didn't think of that, seeing that this data is linked straight on the front page near the "Image of the day" label. It is true that the remotely acquired images are over-represented, but this actually proves that the IOTD/TP works well in selecting for good images, which its goal after all, regardless of the acquisition type. Remotely acquired images usually benefit from better equipment and better location than the average backyard image, so that's only natural.

I suppose that if we tracked "money spent" that would also correlate with "probability of having an IOTD/TP award".
Engaging
Die Launische Diva avatar
Die Launische Diva avatar
It is an over-processed rendition of the tidal stream, in my humble opinion. Isn't it strange that a galaxy (IC 2787) has almost the same brightness as the knots in the tidal stream (relatively) next to it? I don't mind the color noise and saturation by the way. Please don't start another "why this and not that" thread. Enjoy the hobby ❤️
pmneo avatar
pmneo avatar
Die Launische Diva:
It is an over-processed rendition of the tidal stream, in my humble opinion. Isn't it strange that a galaxy (IC 2787) has almost the same brightness as the knots in the tidal stream (relatively) next to it? I don't mind the color noise and saturation by the way. Please don't start another "why this and not that" thread. Enjoy the hobby ❤️

Well, over-processed is relative in my opinion if you take a look into the auto stretched starless lum:



CS
Arun H avatar
Arun H avatar
Die Launische Diva:
Enjoy the hobby ❤️


Agreed. Find something you like. Are you proud of your image? Are you happy with it? That's the most important thing. My IC405 RGB image didn't get a single submitter vote, but it is the one I am happiest with. I took it from my backyard, I really like the colors, and it is an image I wanted to take for years and I finally managed it. I couldn't care less that it didn't get a vote. I use it as my background for my work computer.
Well Written Insightful Respectful Concise Engaging Supportive
pmneo avatar
pmneo avatar
Arun H:
Die Launische Diva:
Enjoy the hobby ❤️


Agreed. Find something you like. Are you proud of your image? Are you happy with it? That's the most important thing. My IC405 RGB image didn't get a single submitter vote, but it is the one I am happiest with. I took it from my backyard, I really like the colors, and it is an image I wanted to take for years and I finally managed it. I couldn't care less that it didn't get a vote. I use it as my background for my work computer.

In general, you are right. But on the other hand, the Astrobin IOTD Award is an additional motivation to achieve, isn't it?

And sometimes you are also blind about your own images ... especally if you invested multiple hours in editing

It would be sometimes just nice to figure out, why the IOTD Team discarded you image. I understand, that this is not possible for the nomination phase, but it would be nice to understand the decition why a Top Pick was not good enough to get an IOTD. (My M31 Arc Image for example: https://app.astrobin.com/u/pmneo?i=x4gcpi#gallery )

CS