Caption details on photos

[BrendanC]

Hi,

I've noticed that some people like to include captions with their photos. It makes perfect sense to include the name/number of the object, plus maybe a copyright, but I've also noticed some people like to include details of the number of frames, stacking software used, scope, camera, ISO value, exposure times etc.

Is there a common consensus about what the most useful details are to include? I'd like to start doing this with mine, and I've looked but can't really find any real advice.

Ta, Brendan

[Davey-T]

It's nice to have details at least of scope, mount, camera and as many more as you feel like adding although I'm guilty of not doing it more often than not 😂

Dave

[BrendanC]

Thanks! I think I'll just put everything until/unless someone tells me I'm being an idiot.

[geeklee]

4 minutes ago, BrendanC said:

Thanks! I think I'll just put everything until/unless someone tells me I'm being an idiot.

For the couple I've posted up, it's what I did too.  I like information when it's posted for other images as it lets you know how and with what the image is captured.  Useful for a beginner like me.  Some also add some bonus information on the object or processing 🙂

[BrendanC]

I think that's a good point - it helps other people to know how you did it. Thanks!

[alacant]

On 16/01/2020 at 13:36, BrendanC said:

most useful details

Hi. I prefer just the image.

Cheers

[Vox45]

I noticed that a lot of the captions are "formated" the same way and look very professional (text placement, font, border).

Is there a prefered software to add captions ?

[adoldesa]

Seeing other's images and knowing which equipment has been used and how the image has been treated helps me a lot to understand what I can and cannot do with my own kit. I mostly post on social media and I add these details in the post, never used an actual caption but I would probably do if posting in a different place. I would say that the most important details are (for me): Scope, filters, correctors/flatteners, mount, camera, total time and subs time, ISO/Gain. This helps others understand what is needed to reach a certain quality of image.

[vlaiv]

Looks like we have confusion here, or is it just me?

Some seem to talk about captions on the image itself, while others talk about information supplied with the image - like in textual form, posted here on SGL or maybe on blog/website where the work is kept and presented to public.

As for captions on the image - sometimes I find it useful to have some additional data, but not what has been mentioned here. Object name, some astronomical info on the object is fine if it does not detract from the image but enhances things. A few markers if image shows something that is otherwise hard to spot. Pixel scale, RA/DEC orientation and coordinates is also not a bad thing and will not take up much space. Calibration bars that might be useful - like if particular false color scheme is used, or some feature of object is coded in colors use (magnitudes instead of brightness or whatever).

Otherwise, I would leave image to tell the story. Additional information that really is useful for comparison and general knowledge - like gear, exposure details, software used maybe even processing steps or at least general outline of processing (for example LRGB - RGB ratio color composing + stellar color calibration, or similar) should be certainly included in my view - but as accompanying text rather than being the part of the image.

Some people like to include general text / some info on target - like distance, size, age, classification, peculiarities - I like that also, even if it is excerpt from Wiki page on that object.

[geeklee]

13 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Some seem to talk about captions on the image itself, while others talk about information supplied with the image - like in textual form, posted here on SGL or maybe on blog/website where the work is kept and presented to public.

That's a good catch @vlaiv On reading this again, captions on images are the primary question.  I'd misinterpreted this and thought it meant information alongside the image.  For me, typically, nothing on the image is good and detail alongside it is helpful (for me).

Edited January 21, 2020 by geeklee

[BrendanC]

Yes, my original post was about captions on images, not accompanying text. I guess it's about three things:

1. What the image shows - helps general public know what they're looking at
2. How the image was taken and processed - helps people like us learn and improve
3. Who took it - helps the copyright owner! Having worked in comms in the past, I would always advise clients to add their logo to any graphics they produced, so that when they were shared, the attribution was shared too. I know people can remove this, but I'd like to think that if I posted a photo, and added a copyright notice to it, people would share the image without cropping out the copyright.

I guess captions added to the image would be good for 1 and 3, while 2 should be accompanying text.

Interesting, thanks for the thoughts.