AstroBin's stance on AI and image authenticity in astrophotography

I appreciate this update Sal, removing their awards and introducing the reporting feature are steps in the right direction, and I appreciate this level of transparency.

That said, I think the community deserves more. Revoking awards while allowing their account to remain active still leaves “potentially” fabricated or misrepresented work visible and able to accumulate credibility through other, maybe even more harmful, means. If the uncertainty around this account’s images is serious enough to remove all prior recognition, it raises the question of whether the platform can fully stand behind any content associated with it.

I’d encourage AstroBin to consider whether continued platform access is appropriate while the situation remains unresolved. A temporary suspension pending review would send a clear message that AstroBin’s integrity standards apply to participation on the platform. Just my two cents.

Mayur

deleted. wrong forum

Rabeea Alkuwari · Mar 26, 2026, 10:58 AM

Hi Salvatore,

Another point that I think needs to be discussed is the censorship in that thread. I dont think image submitters have the authority to remove comments, however I’ve noticed some comments getting removed without an obvious infringement on rules. Is the reporting system for comments automated or what happened exactly?

by ‘that thread’ you mean the awarded image comment section? The uploader of an image has the ability to remove comments under it as they please on Astrobin, I’d reckon that’s likely what was happening. I saw a lot of comments get deleted as well

Dart Frog · Mar 26, 2026 at 11:08 AM

Rabeea Alkuwari · Mar 26, 2026, 10:58 AM

Hi Salvatore,

Another point that I think needs to be discussed is the censorship in that thread. I dont think image submitters have the authority to remove comments, however I’ve noticed some comments getting removed without an obvious infringement on rules. Is the reporting system for comments automated or what happened exactly?

by ‘that thread’ you mean the awarded image comment section? The uploader of an image has the ability to remove comments under it as they please on Astrobin, I’d reckon that’s likely what was happening. I saw a lot of comments get deleted as well

Never knew that. Questionable rule in my opinion

I think, well stated Salvatore… Though I am still concerned about this.

Not wanting to put words into the mouth of the originator of AstroBin, I will take a guess that at the time Salvatore started AstroBin, the intent was to serve as a repository and also a display forum for astro-images made by the enrolled participants. There are a lot of “loaded words and phrases” in that last sentence. And some of the loading may well be because no one at the time could have imagined just how all this would evolve. However, I have seen all sorts of images, originating solely from the person displaying here, or to another extreme, data publicly and only privately available, not collected by the person displaying the work. This includes data reprocessed from Hubble-collected data. Uploading and displaying publicly all these sorts of images seems acceptable, then and now. Another example is one or more individuals who use their carefully collected data and process it to the nth degree to such an extent that the resulting image becomes a colorful and abstract resemblence of the object (with that very intent being very clear). This too clearly has been acceptable and would warrant no removal or question. Or I hope so…

The reason I bring these up, is to ask what the objective of this site is other than to display art. I think that does point to the art vs. science debate because the science part of the argument would offer that the displayer of images be constrained to some ethos of accuracy in their product. As a scientist, retired, I have always taken exception to astrophotography being considered science, even in the slightest, and so often referred too by those who have never actually done science. Science has specific objectives and it achieves those objectives with an approach (scientific method), often along with some technology. Astrophotography, as well as all other forms of photography employs technologies that are relatively modern in nature. Yes, there are those who have included along with their image postings on AstroBin discoveries of new objects, etc. and yes discovery is one aspect of science endeavor, but in those rare cases, there clearly was an objective and in those case, the data presented on AstroBin was also included in publications, or other data dissemination to those in the scientific field who care about such new findings. Also, there are fine examples of published photographic art, which are the resulting spoils of scientific effort. These include Hubble images, and annual photographic contests for best images found during research work that I believe that I have seen in Science and Nature publications. But lest we confuse art from science, all of these examples are published in such a way as to display the work as art. If one goes to the scientific work that generated the images, they would often (but not always) be disappointed at how the images look in those papers! I personally find the Descriptions that people often post along with their images here to be more interesting, the more they report science details. There is no requirement here to do so and no matter how detailed such a review might be, that does not make it science.

Sorry for getting a bit long on the art thing, but I am trying to get to the point that what is posted here on AstroBin is art. Art that uses the technology (engineering) necessary to collect the data. No science. If my statements are wrong, and counter to what AstroBin objective is, then at least define what it is. If yes, it is about the storage and displaying of each participants art, then to limit art to some means of technical accuracy becomes a conflict in my opinion. That is like stating that impressionism is not technically allowable because the images it provides fails to meet some believability standard. For those few here who do process to an extreme level, would we not consider that a form of impressionism for astro images? These sorts of images are not ones I would currently consider generating. But I certainly do not feel that I am to be the judge of what is good art and what is bad art. I am allowed to decide what it is I like and what it is I do not.

As the Table of Contents summary for this thread states “ABs editorial standards require authentic astronomical data without fabricated structural details, from AI or agressive processing.” I am concerned that such constraints could actually kill this art. Astrophotography, ironically one of the most, possible the most, limited of the photographic arts. For almost all celestial objects that we can tag with a telescope/camera, none ever move, ever change within a humans lifetime, or even the whole of human existence. We, being earth-bound, have no way to get a different perspective on most of these objects. Unlike Ansell Adams, we will never be able to hike around M42 and get a different perspective. Never wait for that perfect moment when the setting sun generated a completely different topology of a mountain. Evidence for our starvation for something different is the introduction of narrow band filters. Instant stampede from everyone desperately wanting to offer a different perspective on subject that have been imaged thousands of times. Worked for a short while…

I do see some need to define AstroBin as a resouce for its users. I just worry that the limitations as currently stated may be counterproductive. I certainly feel that those who were to steal data and present it, or clearly present fake data as something “real” should be reprimanded, and postings either removed or their descriptions revised. But as an art, trying to define the art will end up being like trying to herd cats. And to kick people off the site, as an example for someone who are so new to the art and don’t know how to produce an image with their own data that would not violate some sort structure identity rule could be very hurtful.

Ethan Chappel · Mar 26, 2026, 09:00 PM

As for what I think could be done about IOTD, I have a couple ideas to bring forward:

• Have a more diverse group of volunteers. Last time I checked there were only a few people who touched planetary imaging, none of which focused primarily on it. DSO imagers absolutely dominate the IOTD staff.

• Separate the job of dismissing images from submitters into its own group of volunteers. They would be primed to find technical problems in images instead of pushing them forward, and communicating those issues with the other groups could stop the promotion of images that shouldn't be in the first place. They could also be used to help investigate potentially false and/or stolen images when the need arises.

In my response, I specifically did not address IOTD as it relates to this topic. Mostly because any discussion about IOTD always degrades. Yet, it appears this thread was stimulated by and affected the IOTD issue with one submitter.

I personally do not participate in IOTD. After joining AstroBin, I soon found out that I could choose to not participate. And made the choice enthusiastically. I spent a few months not knowing and even got some recognition, and soon realized that the process was detrimental to my development. I am certainly no artist of any importance, but my ideas of how art is practiced, what freedoms in what and how I do it, etc., seemed pressured by the sudden realization that the idea of winning some recognition was actually starting to pressure the decisions that I was making in how I generated images. Once recognize, I ended that. And the heated discussions that pop up about IOTD are a constant reminder of how IOTD can be an unhealthfull experience for so many budding artists.

That said, IOTD and many other such contests will always be. And I certaily love to see these nice photos highlighted… Even if I do not participate. I think that it is a fools errand to try to perfect the IOTD. It will always suffer from some deficiency or another no matter how much effort is put into it. The best way to make it never be controversial is to have the decision made by an omnipotent power, who’s identity is secret and can never be discovered. It simply makes the choices! Short of that, there will always be complainers.

I do think that IOTD, by the presssure that it applies to the herds of astrophotographers, can play a large role in what astrophotographers post to AstroBin. Maybe that can resolve some of the target properties that editorial decisions are trying to fix? These pressures are much the same pressures that I found to be objectionable for my own development! When thought of that way, then how do you feel about the subtle, yet real manipulation that such a thing could possibly affect you? I fear that wanting to win such awards might even be the pressure that causes people to fabricate images or overprocess in some cases (were intent is not to overprocess). Turning what most here would say is a past-time and a personal search for discovery so often smells like a highly competitive contest to me! I do believe that those negative properties would exist whether IOTD existed or not.

I think @Alan Brunelle ‘s two posts above make points that are well worth reflecting on.

There does seem to me to be a way of improving this situation. Make “IOTD” a sub-page, not the main landing image.

“IOTD” is not the image of the day, it is an editorial decision (as Sal’s original post makes clear).

Well, even the newspapers put their op-eds on the inside pages, they do not put it on the front page every day. Those who want to read the op-eds can go there. Those who do not, can get on with what they want from the paper.

The approach taken on astrobin.com/forum landing page is excellent - every time you land on it, it’s a different image (even during the same day). It makes for many serendipitous discoveries.

The approach taken on astrobin.com landing page is not. Forcing an editorial decision that is anointed as “IOTD” and becomes something everyone is forced to see…that approach seems slightly gedankenpolizei.

We can make our own minds up. Those who care about editorial anointments of “IOTD” can seek them out, but pls don’t force everyone to see them?