Give me your brutal critiques, In other photo disciplines I learned a lot from criticism. I enjoy it.
I thought this was a good image of IC 63. Most really diminish or even crop out the star. I attempted to make it prominent and as natural as possible. This is the first image I ever submitted for awards here and it went nowhere. I would appreciate what others would do different with this subject and what you all think is not good.
Dan Kearl · Oct 24, 2025, 01:53 AM
Give me your brutal critiques, In other photo disciplines I learned a lot from criticism. I enjoy it.
I thought this was a good image of IC 63. Most really diminish or even crop out the star. I attempted to make it prominent and as natural as possible. This is the first image I ever submitted for awards here and it went nowhere. I would appreciate what others would do different with this subject and what you all think is not good.
Pretty decent. Merge Ha and R as a single channel, color correct it and run a BGE, The Ha is overbearing, also stretch the data more, contrast is pretty low and the star appears slightly grey.
In the integration details you mention that you have captured a decent amount of RGB data; however, the whole image is red. This can be confirmed by inspecting the histogram: the blue and green distributions are nearly identical. I won't dwell on the fact that the stars are too small and muted; judging from your gallery, you follow this practice in general. Without sounding too harsh, the image as it is wouldn't pass the submitter's review phase.
This is a visually striking image with a lot of impact. The composition is perfect. I can’t emphisize that enough. A lot of imagers don’t understand that but you nailed it!
Now for the hammer. The overall color balance doesn’t work for me. It’s far too red. Looking at the stars, all I see are white and orange. You have RGB data so the information needed for full RGB stars is there. I also think you left in a bit more noise then you needed to. I would love to see a version of this with those things corrected.
Die Launische Diva · Oct 24, 2025 at 10:46 AM
In the integration details you mention that you have captured a decent amount of RGB data; however, the whole image is red. This can be confirmed by inspecting the histogram: the blue and green distributions are nearly identical. I won't dwell on the fact that the stars are too small and muted; judging from your gallery, you follow this practice in general. Without sounding too harsh, the image as it is wouldn't pass the submitter's review phase.
Thank you very much, I appreciate the honest comments.
Tony Gondola · Oct 24, 2025 at 01:40 PM
This is a visually striking image with a lot of impact. The composition is perfect. I can’t emphisize that enough. A lot of imagers don’t understand that but you nailed it!
Now for the hammer. The overall color balance doesn’t work for me. It’s far too red. Looking at the stars, all I see are white and orange. You have RGB data so the information needed for full RGB stars is there. I also think you left in a bit more noise then you needed to. I would love to see a version of this with those things corrected.
Thanks Tony, I appreciate you taking the time to comment and I will work on the things you mentioned.
Die Launische Diva · Oct 24, 2025, 10:46 AM
Without sounding too harsh, the image as it is wouldn't pass the submitter's review phase.
Not to steer too much off track here but I don’t really think passing the submitters review phase is a valid measurement of any kind of quality tbh. A lot of faulty images pass through those flood-gates while many quality ones gets slept on.
Back on track OP:
However, I agree with most of the things said. Composition wise, just because it was mentioned above, I would have adjusted the FOV slightly to the right and downwards just because there is some distracting structures to the left, and a bit cut off at the bottom. Though I’m not really considering framing as very important in the astronomy part of my photography passion, I don’t know why - but I just don’t.
I notice two things straight away. The first being the stars that are completely muted which is a look I don’t like at all. Keep them pinpoint and colorful - personally I find this more important than the Ha being too powerful. The second is the overpowered red, especially in the darker areas which are too dark for my taste. It’s a quite sudden drop off from bright red to pitch black. Keep in mind that it’s both an emission and reflection nebula, so let the RGB shine too :)
Also, is the image inverted?
Die Launische Diva · Oct 24, 2025, 10:46 AM
the stars are too small and muted; judging from your gallery, you follow this practice in general.
Yes but this does work really well with some of the images in his gallery as it accentuates the nebulosity e.g Dan’s image of Auriga is a real beauty 👌 Wonderfully captured gas and dust clouds that aren’t overpowered by the star field. All very subjective of course.
Jeremy Phillips FRAS · Oct 24, 2025, 04:16 PM
Die Launische Diva · Oct 24, 2025, 10:46 AM
the stars are too small and muted; judging from your gallery, you follow this practice in general.
Yes but this does work really well with some of the images in his gallery as it accentuates the nebulosity e.g Dan’s image of Auriga is a real beauty 👌 Wonderfully captured gas and dust clouds that aren’t overpowered by the star field. All very subjective of course.
I am fine with @Dan Kearl’s preference on star reduction, even if I am not a fan of (heavy) star reduction😊. However, all stars appear flat-topped; I believe their profile and color could be better.
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 24, 2025 at 03:08 PM
Also, is the image inverted?
Thanks for the review Jan, and yes it is flipped both horizontal and vertical. I am not sure why this matters at all in Astrophotography, but maybe there is a reason I don’t understand?
James Webb images seem to be oriented whichever way they want, not sure what the correct perspective is in space?
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 24, 2025 at 03:08 PM
Though I’m not really considering framing as very important in the astronomy part of my photography passion, I don’t know why - but I just don’t.
I think framing and composition are very important, I don’t know why Astro is any different than any other Photo or art form. It seems essential.
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 24, 2025, 03:08 PM
Die Launische Diva · Oct 24, 2025, 10:46 AM
Without sounding too harsh, the image as it is wouldn't pass the submitter's review phase.
Not to steer too much off track here but I don’t really think passing the submitters review phase is a valid measurement of any kind of quality tbh. A lot of faulty images pass through those flood-gates while many quality ones gets slept on.
Well, the OP mentioned that this was his first image submitted for IOTD and said it didn’t go anywhere. If I were a submitter, since this is a popular subject, I would move to another submission because the whole image is red.
Dan Kearl · Oct 24, 2025, 11:24 PM
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 24, 2025 at 03:08 PM
Also, is the image inverted?
Thanks for the review Jan, and yes it is flipped both horizontal and vertical. I am not sure why this matters at all in Astrophotography, but maybe there is a reason I don’t understand?
James Webb images seem to be oriented whichever way they want, not sure what the correct perspective is in space?
Not really, just a question based on perspective and inverted images do look/feel very strange to me. Just a part of the critique from my POV.
Dan Kearl · Oct 24, 2025, 11:28 PM
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 24, 2025 at 03:08 PM
Though I’m not really considering framing as very important in the astronomy part of my photography passion, I don’t know why - but I just don’t.
I think framing and composition are very important, I don’t know why Astro is any different than any other Photo or art form. It seems essential.
That may be the case, but I separate astronomy from photography. My main interest is the objects I’m looking at, and studying those to the best of my ability, hence the orientation of it doesn’t necessarily matter too much. All within reason of course.
Now, if I was hired to do portraits or doing specific landscape photography things would be very different to me.
Just how I approach it. I rarely give orientation too much of a thought, but of course try to place the objects in a meaningful way depending on my FOV. I’m not randomly pointing around that is :)
Die Launische Diva · Oct 25, 2025, 06:51 AM
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 24, 2025, 03:08 PM
Die Launische Diva · Oct 24, 2025, 10:46 AM
Without sounding too harsh, the image as it is wouldn't pass the submitter's review phase.
Not to steer too much off track here but I don’t really think passing the submitters review phase is a valid measurement of any kind of quality tbh. A lot of faulty images pass through those flood-gates while many quality ones gets slept on.
Well, the OP mentioned that this was his first image submitted for IOTD and said it didn’t go anywhere. If I were a submitter, since this is a popular subject, I would move to another submission because the whole image is red.
Fair enough, I completely agree! However I feel my point still stands. Way too many poor images gets through that process despite obvious faults despite the rules. So I was just trying to get it out there that not getting a TPN/TP is not something anyone should measure their images by.
You can have a great image, but still not get anywhere in the process in competition with lesser images. Too many variables at the end of the day.
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 25, 2025, 09:42 AM
Dan Kearl · Oct 24, 2025, 11:28 PM
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 24, 2025 at 03:08 PM
Though I’m not really considering framing as very important in the astronomy part of my photography passion, I don’t know why - but I just don’t.
I think framing and composition are very important, I don’t know why Astro is any different than any other Photo or art form. It seems essential.
That may be the case, but I separate astronomy from photography. My main interest is the objects I’m looking at, and studying those to the best of my ability, hence the orientation of it doesn’t necessarily matter too much. All within reason of course.
Now, if I was hired to do portraits or doing specific landscape photography things would be very different to me.
Just how I approach it. I rarely give orientation too much of a thought, but of course try to place the objects in a meaningful way depending on my FOV. I’m not randomly pointing around that is :)
Yeah, but there is real beauty out there. And with just a little reorientation and rotation you can reflect that in your images. I love the way this hobby is a mixture of technology, science and…art. The images on your feed, Jan, don’t look like the orientation has been random e.g that nice looking, dynamically orientated LBN331.
Jan Erik Vallestad:
Way too many poor images gets through that process despite obvious faults despite the rules.
Totally agree. Some IOTDs and Top Picks might look unimpressive, but when you look at the dates they were taken and got their awards, they are all from a good few years back before the standards on Astrobin went through the roof. And I think Salvatore himself mentioned somewhere that right back at the very beginning there was no formal sifting process and almost a random element to the allocation of awards. These days the awards only reflect high quality work IMO. The other side of the coin is that a lot of great images won’t get recognised nowadays because there are limited spots for awards, but they are still great images, so it’s not worth anyone beating themselves up if they don’t get a nomination. And, after all, the only real point of this is to have fun.
Jeremy Phillips FRAS · Oct 25, 2025, 02:06 PM
and almost a random element to the allocation of awards.
I surely never said it was almost random :-) But everything else in your post is right. Standards have gone up a lot!
Salvatore Iovene:
I surely never said it was almost random :-) But everything else in your post is right. Standards have gone up a lot!
Arun H · Oct 25, 2025, 06:55 PM
Salvatore Iovene:
I surely never said it was almost random :-) But everything else in your post is right. Standards have gone up a lot!
The randomness, such as it is, is from a timing standpoint. If you submit your image at a point where there are a ton of other images of the same object, then you lower your chances. Also, if it is a commonly imaged object, there would have to be something special about it for it to make the cut, or possibly a dearth of other good images die to sheer chance.
Yes, there is an element of randomness from that point of view, which is not the same as saying that the process was almost random.
Dan Kearl · Oct 24, 2025, 11:24 PM
Jan Erik Vallestad · Oct 24, 2025 at 03:08 PM
Also, is the image inverted?
Thanks for the review Jan, and yes it is flipped both horizontal and vertical. I am not sure why this matters at all in Astrophotography, but maybe there is a reason I don’t understand?
James Webb images seem to be oriented whichever way they want, not sure what the correct perspective is in space?
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a JWST image that was flipped. They’re shot at different rotations, yes, but never flipped. Though I’d be happy if someone can find an example that proves me wrong.
Salvatore Iovene · Oct 25, 2025, 06:49 PM
Jeremy Phillips FRAS · Oct 25, 2025, 02:06 PM
and almost a random element to the allocation of awards.
I surely never said it was almost random :-) But everything else in your post is right. Standards have gone up a lot!
Apologies for misquoting you!
27 Cas is too dim/crushed to me, I would expect it to be much brighter in the image, that would look more natural.