Remote imaging M16 - My first attempt

[andrew s]

This tread will run and run as there is no right answer.

Modern society is a cooperative activity. None of us could image if we were still a subsistence culture.

Provided you list you equipment and other relevant details, hosting site, source of images, software etc. then it seems to me you have acknowledged the direct contributors to you image and other can judge it on its merits and their own personal philosophy.

What more can you do?

Regards Andrew 

[gorann]

16 minutes ago, Jkulin said:

Hi Göran, lets agree to disagree, if he wants to process and practice with other peoples data then fine, but it should be classified totally separately from other peoples work and should never be included as an IOTD

Indeed it is not the first time that other peoples data has been selected for IOTD and a number of us have already suggested a review of this, it should be classified totally separately.

 

5 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

Not trying to stir things up but i will agree with @Jkulin on this one. Someone who works hard to acquire the image (their own time and money invested) should be valued and regarded higher than using a publicly available data and get recognistion for someone elses hardships. I would be happy if someone was to process my data, i've got no qualms about that but then posting it to get recognition, i won't be best pleased. 

Yes, but the only thing Daniel has done is to post the images he processes on his Astrobin page. He has no saying in what the IOTD people are doing.

[gorann]

2 minutes ago, andrew s said:

This tread will run and run as there is no right answer.

Modern society is a cooperative activity. None of us could image if we were still a subsistence culture.

Provided you list you equipment and other relevant details, hosting site, source of images, software etc. then it seems to me you have acknowledged the direct contributors to you image and other can judge it on its merits and their own personal philosophy.

What more can you do?

Regards Andrew 

There you go Andrew, you found the right answer!

Could not have said it better.

[souls33k3r]

2 minutes ago, gorann said:

 

Yes, but the only thing Daniel has done is to post the images he processes on his Astrobin page. He has no saying in what the IOTD people are doing.

I agree but the person knows for well what could become of that image if it gets enough likes

[Demonperformer]

In light of this, just to clarify my previous comments.

I do not hold with processing data that another has collected and posting it as your own. But I see this as different from buying time on a remote right,  making all the same decisions you would when imaging from home and using the subs you have chosen to take.

[glowingturnip]

1 hour ago, Jkulin said:

I have just seen this and it is the epitome of everything I dislike about remote imaging using other peoples data: -

[snip]

Indeed a beautiful image, but it should never have been selected for IOTD above far more worthy images! 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

completely agree, that kind of thing cheapens the whole IOTD process and makes it not worth pursuing (not that I stand a chance anyway).  I might as well take a whole bunch of Hubble back numbers, tweak the colours a bit, and see how many likes I get.

Sure the capture details are stated there on Astrobin, but would they survive if a mainstream news source picked it up as an IOTD to publish it, or would they survive a retweet ?

[gorann]

21 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

I agree but the person knows for well what could become of that image if it gets enough likes

Do you mean that someone like Daniel should not upload the images he has processed to his Astrobin so that they would never leave his hard drive and never be seen by others that clearly appears to appreciate them a lot? And should he do so to satisfy those that finds it terrible that such an image may become an IOTD?

Apparently a lot of those looking at Astrobin images could not care less how they were acquired, they just appreciate the beauty of them, and I find nothing wrong with that and I do not think that Astrobin should be a site solely for those that swear that they have done it all them self except for manufacturing the equipment. Maybe the puritans should form their own Elite-Astrobin with their own PIOTD (Puritan Image of the Day) 😎

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Feel free to differ in opinion, but please keep the tone friendly.

I tend to agree with some of the early posts in this thread that all is fine as long as you are honest about the sources of the data. Astronomy is a science, so you can use other peoples' work provided you give credit where credit is due. If getting data from a rented remote telescope is "cheating", does this mean we can take credit for the kit we have, having just bought it off the shelf? Should we all build our own scopes, mounts, and cameras? So provided you mention the source of the data, and only take credit for the processing, all is well in my book. Moreover, if I plan the imaging (targets, instrumentation used, exposure times), I can take credit for that part as well. I recently got into a discussion with an astronomer from the Instituto Astrofisica de Canarias, and we got into a discussion on the potential of lucky imaging on really big scopes. He actually suggested donating 5 minutes of time on a seriously fast camera on a seriously large telescope. Unfortunately, powers higher up didn't want to "waste" even such a short time on the instrument for an experiment they thought would fail, but had I got the data and turned it into a neat image, would that be cheating?

In the analogy of fishing posted earlier: I personally don't have the patience to go fishing, but I can cook some seriously good fish and seafood dishes. I can take full credit for the cookery, not the capture or culture of the fish, scallops, clams, etc involved. I would never pose with the fish, but I would happily pose with the resulting dish!

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

Feel free to differ in opinion, but please keep the tone friendly.

I tend to agree with some of the early posts in this thread that all is fine as long as you are honest about the sources of the data. Astronomy is a science, so you can use other peoples' work provided you give credit where credit is due. If getting data from a rented remote telescope is "cheating", does this mean we can take credit for the kit we have, having just bought it off the shelf? Should we all build our own scopes, mounts, and cameras? So provided you mention the source of the data, and only take credit for the processing, all is well in my book. Moreover, if I plan the imaging (targets, instrumentation used, exposure times), I can take credit for that part as well. I recently got into a discussion with an astronomer from the Instituto Astrofisica de Canarias, and we got into a discussion on the potential of lucky imaging on really big scopes. He actually suggested donating 5 minutes of time on a seriously fast camera on a seriously large telescope. Unfortunately, powers higher up didn't want to "waste" even such a short time on the instrument for an experiment they thought would fail, but had I got the data and turned it into a neat image, would that be cheating?

In the analogy of fishing posted earlier: I personally don't have the patience to go fishing, but I can cook some seriously good fish and seafood dishes. I can take full credit for the cookery, not the capture or culture of the fish, scallops, clams, etc involved. I would never pose with the fish, but I would happily pose with the resulting dish!

I wouldn't pose with a fish either. It gets pretty hot down here...

lly

[Jkulin]

I used to fish, but gave up because of my beliefs many years ago, but when I did, I made my own rods and bait, I wrote many articles for books and magazines and appeared on the front cover of the Angling Times and Anglers Mail a large number of times, but I would never have claimed a capture if I had not cast, hooked and landed the fish and tied my own rigs, this is me 27 years ago when I had hair!: -

Edited June 19, 2019 by Jkulin
typos

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

I wouldn't pose with a fish either. It gets pretty hot down here...

lly

But posing with e.g. a nice bouillabaisse wouldn't smell too fishy

 

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, Jkulin said:

I used to fish, but gave up because of my beliefs many years ago, but when I did, I made my own rods and bait, I wrote many articles for books and magazines and appeared on the front cover of the Angling Times and Anglers Mail a large number of times, but I would never have claimed a capture if I had not cast, hooked and landed the fish and tied my own rigs, this is me 27 years ago when I had hair!: -

That's not hair, it's scales!

lly

[alacant]

On 17/06/2019 at 16:36, Jkulin said:

would listen and learn

Hi

A good way to learn different approaches is watch someone's TeamViewer session. Not so good when they then expect you to switch cameras at 03:30!

[Jkulin]

11 minutes ago, alacant said:

Hi

A good way to learn different approaches is watch someone's TeamViewer session. Not so good when they then expect you to switch cameras at 03:30!

He was probably teasing you to see if you were still awake 🙂

[Datalord]

On 18/06/2019 at 11:51, Jkulin said:

Should someone who spends days, weeks months or years even trying to capture sufficient quality data to produce an image compete for the accolade of "image of the day" for some one who buys their data and then processes it and enters into the same competition.

I have to agree on this one. Perhaps that's where my limit on this one is. If you can call it your "own" and get an APOD based on Hubble data (pretty picture, but that one also irked me!), I'm not cool with it. I do have a remote obsy now, but I did everything myself.

[Scott]

On 18/06/2019 at 11:51, Jkulin said:

OK playing devils advocate here and I know @carastro will chuckle, at what point does an image hosted, captured and processed by one self compete against one setup remotely hosted but captured and processed by another versus data purchased and downloaded then processed compare. So in theory three methods, the first two as I mentioned early require considerably skill and patience, the third well....?

Should someone who spends days, weeks months or years even trying to capture sufficient quality data to produce an image compete for the accolade of "image of the day" for some one who buys their data and then processes it and enters into the same competition.

Should there be different classifications?

No! Not when the rules of the competition allows it. That would be just silly. Not sure what the answer is, bar changing the rules just for those who don't like it?...

 

[Scott]

What strikes me is that the very same arguements we hear against people using remote imaging (all types) are the ones used when someone has a £100k obsy in the backyard compared the those who often, through no fault of their own, use budget equipment that they must haul to a dark site 3-4 times a year. 
Astrophotgraphy is never going to be competed on a level playing field.  Just find the niche' that suits you and let others do the same. 

[Jkulin]

Beautiful image, but it makes my blood boil, another professional data image wins IOTD: -

https://www.astrobin.com/410359/0/?nc=iotd

Edited June 21, 2019 by Jkulin

[david_taurus83]

Well I've cancelled my subscription to iTelescope. I've built up over 100 points which is enough for half an hour on one of the 500mm scopes at Siding Springs in Oz. Booked a slot for 2.25am local time, it started 45 minutes late and cancelled itself for no apparent reason. The session log says the roof is closed but the main menu says it's open. And another scope was still in use. Not the first time my requests for scope time have been cancelled for whatever reason. Dont know what will happen with my 100 points but I do know they wont be getting another penny! It seems that remote imaging, for me anyway, is just as frustrating as home imaging!😢

[Z3roCool]

I have just signed up for the Plan 40 with Triple Points Bonus so have 160 points.

I have my own kit and do a lot of imaging myself at home. I have learnt everything myself and think I have a pretty good grasp on the process,. Always loads to learn, that is why I love this hobby. I love a session under the stars but for me it is very few and far between I get the chance. Also there are a number of targets I cannot see in the UK.

For these reasons I think capturing data from a remote site is fine. I get to use kit I can never afford, in dark sky I will probably never get to other than the odd occasion a year, that is hoping the weather plays ball also. I will be able to get data on targets I will never see from the UK. Yes, I will not have the satisfaction of setting up and overcoming the challenges of doing the hard work myself, but as an add on to capturing data myself I think it is brilliant.

As long as someone does not pretend they captured the data from their back garden and states it is data captured from a scope half way up a mountain in dark sky, setup and managed by someone else, all is good

[Star101]

1 hour ago, Z3roCool said:

I have just signed up for the Plan 40 with Triple Points Bonus so have 160 points.

I have my own kit and do a lot of imaging myself at home. I have learnt everything myself and think I have a pretty good grasp on the process,. Always loads to learn, that is why I love this hobby. I love a session under the stars but for me it is very few and far between I get the chance. Also there are a number of targets I cannot see in the UK.

For these reasons I think capturing data from a remote site is fine. I get to use kit I can never afford, in dark sky I will probably never get to other than the odd occasion a year, that is hoping the weather plays ball also. I will be able to get data on targets I will never see from the UK. Yes, I will not have the satisfaction of setting up and overcoming the challenges of doing the hard work myself, but as an add on to capturing data myself I think it is brilliant.

As long as someone does not pretend they captured the data from their back garden and states it is data captured from a scope half way up a mountain in dark sky, setup and managed by someone else, all is good

Congratulations. I hope you find it as interesting as I do. I look forward to seeing some of your work from remote imaging

[kirkster501]

This is an interesting thread and I am a billion percent in agreement with Carol.

I am frustrated at having six projects near completion but desperate for a channel in each one of them - some of these objects are now setting so looks like they are gone for another year unless we get some clear sky and, by the looks of the forecast, that is not happening any time soon in the UK.  Sure I researched Deep Sky West and could subscribe to a data pool off of the FSQ106 and QSI683 scope there.  $1200 is not that bad really when you think of the fortune of kit in my observatory that spends more time as a towel rack.  The cost per picture would be a fraction of what we spend on our own gear considering the almost total cloud out we live under in the UK.  I could afford it too.  But I won't.  It's "cheating" in my (probably worthless) opinion if you do not declare the data to be acquired as such.

Getting all the incredibly complex bits working to make a picture, my picture, is the name of the game to me.  Now, my pictures are rubbish compared to Olly's and some others.  But they are my pictures.  That I made with my gear under my skies with my blood, sweat and tears on them.  If that gear is yours, that you set up in Spain [insert none 95% clouded out country], that still qualifies in my mind as your picture.  You ran the gear and had to get it all working in order to download those subs.

Processing data on scopes someone else runs, that you never touch, does not qualify as your picture in my mind.  I will never like such a picture unless expressly declared as such (and many people don't).  If, say, Sara gave me access to her data pool and free time on her scopes and sent me the subs, I could not consider the resulting pictures to be mine.  It is a fine art and skill to get the scopes, mounts, cameras, software and everything else working in unison.  That AND the processing contributes to the picture as yours.

But then who cares what I think.  If it makes you happy then go for it, I'm not impugning anyone.  Just sharing my opinion.  And not everyone will agree.  And that's fine!

Edited October 7, 2019 by kirkster501

[Jkulin]

@kirkster501 Sums up my thoughts perfectly.😎

[Hallingskies]

I wish I could plonk my kit down somewhere secure and cloud-free and just fire it all up over the wires when I fancied doing a spot of AP, with someone local in attendance to hit it with a big stick for me when it played up.  I couldn’t care less if anyone called me a “cheat” for doing so.  But then I can’t get my IT to work reliably when my gear is only half-way down the garden, let alone half-way around the world...

...and just popping over to Spain or wherever is just about to get a whole lot more expensive and difficult...

[DaveS]

Since professional astronomers are quite happy to book time on various big telescope that they don't themselves own, and use the data in their research papers, I'm quite happy to follow their example and book exclusive time on a big 'scope somewhere with bette skies and with views of objects I can't see from here. I do draw the line at pooled data where you have to share time and data with a group.

Or I would if I could afford it, the same as many a cash-strapped research institution.