Orpington Astronomical Society

Astronomy => Astrophotography => Topic started by: Carole on Jan 12, 2018, 10:38:43

Title: Remote imaging & using other people's data
Post by: Carole on Jan 12, 2018, 10:38:43
I frequent Astrobin as its a great site and I am now one of the Moderators for picking IOTD.   

I am really shocked at the number of people who submit images of Data they did not capture themselves or taken from a remote observatory which they didn't set up themselves, and these images are picked alongside those that imagers take with their own blood and sweat from their local areas which does not seem to be fair play to me.  I did mention this in one of the forum posts, but was told it was a contentious issue that had been debated a fair amount in the past and having seen the VERY fractious debate on the way IOTD is chosen about 18 months ago I decided not to pursue it any further. 

What's your opinion on imaging from a remote location using gear you haven't set up yourself, or even worse using Hubble data or similar?  As far as I am concerned, it is just a processing exercise and cheating. 

I shall continue to be a Moderator, as I am seeing some great images (even besides the remote ones in question), and finding a fair number of targets I didn't know existed.

Personally I think there should be two different categories, and will try to suggest that at the end of my tenure.  At least I have managed to get the "runners up" a badge as a Top Pick thanks to a thread I started.


Title: Re: Remote imaging & using other people's data
Post by: JohnP on Jan 12, 2018, 12:15:45
ha ha Fay knows all about this eh Fay.. ;-) 
or even worse using Hubble data or similar?

Must admit agree with you on this.. If you are capturing data remotely on some 'top of the range kit' all you are essentially doing is processing so maybe there should be 2 categories - IOTD & POTD I have a real 'bugbear' with some of the images APOD keeps using - all the artyf**ty ones, non astro ones & repeats from years gone by - seems such a shame when you have imagers' like Mark getting the results they get...
Title: Re: Remote imaging & using other people's data
Post by: Mac on Jan 12, 2018, 17:09:32
Personally I think if you have take the image theirselves then that should be higher up the list.
Using other people images as your own is frowned upon in my opinion, reprocessed or not, and should really only be considered if you have absolutely nothing else to look at.

Whats your view Fay,  :cheesy: ;)

Light blue touch paper and hide. :boom:

Title: Re: Remote imaging & using other people's data
Post by: The Thing on Jan 12, 2018, 18:17:13
I agree, if you haven't taken it with your own kit it should be in a processing category, not an image category. I am not too fussed if personal kit is remotely located e.g in Spain as it's not too different to sticking it in the car and taking it to a dark site, you still had to select the gear and make it work and then capture the target and process it. Using a 1+m scope in timbuctu with a vast selection of filters etc. all profesionally maintained is like downloading NASA data and processing it, a processing excerise not a system design and constrcution,  acquisition to finished image.

Title: Re: Remote imaging & using other people's data
Post by: MarkS on Jan 12, 2018, 19:16:21
I definitely agree.  If it's not your equipment then it goes in a different category.  For instance, the RMG Astronomy Photographer of the Year has a robotic category:

For the purposes of this competition, a robotic telescope is considered to be one that is operated via the internet and is publically available to all, such as Faulkes, Slooh, NSO, Global Remote Telescope Network (GRAS), LightBuckets, Liverpool, etc. ‘Publically available’ means that it must be possible to book time (including for a fee) on the robotic telescope.

I've nothing against folk processing Hubble data (you often see them on APOD) or data from a scope where time has been booked but in all cases it should be made clear.

BTW I've downloaded raw Hubble data to process and it's a real pig to process - missing columns etc.  If you bought such a camera from QHY, SBIG, Atik, SX, QSI, FLI, Moravian, Orion etc you'd send it straight back!

Title: Re: Remote imaging & using other people's data
Post by: Carole on Jan 12, 2018, 21:55:52
I thought and hoped you would all agree with me on this.  I do agree with Duncan that if you have actually bought and set up kit in a remote location then its a different matter, its your kit and you made it all work properly.

To be fair they do state that the image was using Hubble or Liverpool data etc or whether it was done remotely such as Deep Sky West in Mexico, but what I object to is these images being put up against those taken in people's back yards, or at astro camps etc which they have set up themselves.  Sometimes they win too.

I really think there should be a separate category and will suggest it at a later date, but I don't want to make too much fuss at this juncture.  After all I just managed to get the Top Picks award through, so don't want to push my luck.

For the hell of it I have downloaded some data from DSW which is available publicly, I have processed it, it looks great but feel no enthusiasm to post it because it's not my image.  Which incidentally is stacked and clipped before you even start.