Award winning photograph of Andromeda

[Peter Drew]

There once was a King who ordered some new clothes.   🙂

[AbsolutelyN]

Don't get your comment. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by AbsolutelyN

[Sunshine]

Not so sure about that effect, it makes Andromeda look tiny.

[AbsolutelyN]

1 minute ago, Sunshine said:

Not so sure about that effect, it makes Andromeda look tiny.

But it is tiny compared to the scale of the universe. 

[tomato]

Connect 4!
 

[Xiga]

I'm a bit late to the party, but have just finished reading through the whole thread, and have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. 

From an artistic point of view, i don't mind the photo at all. I quite like it actually. But it shouldn't be winning 'Astronomy Photographer of the year', no way. As others have said, there should be two separate categories. One for serious AP, and another for creative 'arty' interpretations of AP. The panel they chose is really only fit for choosing the later. They should have a proper panel of AP experts for choosing the serious one. 

Funnily enough, a few years back i tried something similar myself (just using PS, and not to very good effect) with the very first astro photo i ever took (also of M31). I was only messing about, but maybe if i was a bit more clued-in i might be £10k better off today! 🤪

 

[tomato]

7 minutes ago, AbsolutelyN said:

But it is tiny compared to the scale of the universe. 

But if you want to show the scale of the universe how about an image of Markarian’s Chain or any galaxy cluster? 
 

These images won the competition, so all credit to the creators, but I’m sorry I don’t see them as AP.
 

 

[JamesF]

It leaves me cold.  I think it's a very unnatural image for the brain to "read" whilst trying at the same time to give the appearance of being natural.  It's not specifically the out of focus stars that I don't like, but the fact that the in-focus and out-of-focus regions of the image are horizontal bands.  It's kind of like looking through a telescope that's poorly-corrected in only one plane.  Or, if you prefer, it looks like someone deliberately set a camera at an angle to the focal plane.

If beauty isn't in the eye of the beholder then perhaps art may be.  For me, this image fails as art because it doesn't offer me a journey (or "tell a story", if you wish).  I'm not really that enamoured of Duchamp's Fountain, but I see more in it as a work of art than I do in this.

James

[Xiga]

2 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

Genuine question. can I ask how you did that. Wouldn’t mind a go. 

It's actually pretty easy in PS Adam. Have a look here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ixwq_1FFg&ab_channel=AdobeAsiaPacific

https://creativepro.com/creating-tilt-shift-effects-in-photoshop/

[westmarch]

Come on guys, this is clearly an art competition that has been judged and won. Interpretation and creativity has been given equal status to guiding, kit and software manipulation of an image.

Who is to say what has the greater intrinsic value?  A photograph or a painting?

Most photography, other than photo-journalism or raw images, is an art form requiring judgement and taste, is it not?

John

Edited September 11, 2020 by westmarch

[AbsolutelyN]

5 minutes ago, tomato said:

But if you want to show the scale of the universe how about an image of Markarian’s Chain or any galaxy cluster? 

These images won the competition, so all credit to the creators, but I’m sorry I don’t see them as AP.

I get where people are coming from with opinions on this on this when they dedicate so much time and effort to their images but it's a public visual competition based around astronomy. It's open to creative interpretations that inspire people.  

Also I love your images, they are amazing, but the connect 4 comment is a bit disrespectful to the photographer in my opinion. 

[Stargazer33]

Don't like it!

As for the last one!!! How is a crumpled up piece of paper astro photography? 🤪

[JamesF]

4 minutes ago, AbsolutelyN said:

the connect 4 comment is a bit disrespectful to the photographer in my opinion.

I disagree with this (and you may disagree with me   If you put something out there as a piece of art then you must expect whatever interpretations people respond with.

One of the things my son was taught for his English Lit GCSE was to think "the author is dead".  That is, you can't necessarily know what the creator of a piece was intending by its creation because in the general case you can't ask them (because they're dead) and even if you could they might not give an accurate answer.  Therefore your response is all about what you read into the work.  If it says to you "giant connect4 game", then that's what it says to you   Visiting the Tate a few years back my daughter said that one work "looked like a dog poo".  Well, err, yes, it did a bit, actually.  No idea if that was what the artist intended, but yes, it did.

I assume the 2016 winner is actually an homage to Damien Hirst's spot paintings.

James

[AbsolutelyN]

1 minute ago, JamesF said:

I disagree with this (and you may disagree with me   If you put something out there as a piece of art then you must expect whatever interpretations people respond with.

One of the things my son was taught for his English Lit GCSE was to think "the author is dead".  That is, you can't necessarily know what the creator of a piece was intending by its creation because in the general case you can't ask them (because they're dead) and even if you could they might not give an accurate answer.  Therefore your response is all about what you read into the work.  If it says to you "giant connect4 game", then that's what it says to you   Visiting the Tate a few years back my daughter said that one work "looked like a dog poo".  Well, err, yes, it did a bit, actually.  No idea if that was what the artist intended, but yes, it did.

I assume the 2016 winner is actually an homage to Damien Hirst's spot paintings.

James

Fair enough. I can't disagree with you in principal but I suspect the comment was more in sarcasm rather than a direct interpretation of the image. I think I give up with this thread and leave disappointment with may of the views expressed.  

[JamesF]

22 minutes ago, Stargazer33 said:

As for the last one!!! How is a crumpled up piece of paper astro photography? 🤪

It is a prize for "image innovation", so perhaps should be open to more relaxed interpretation.  That photo leaves me with nothing though.  It gives no idea of scale or information about whether that is the entire work or just part of it.

James

[Adam J]

I really dislike that image, its not a worthy winner in my opinion. The effect is one thing but to be honest the underlying image of M31 is not that great either....10K for this....someone must have let an impresionist onto the judges panel lol.

 

[JamesF]

5 minutes ago, Adam J said:

someone must have let an impresionist onto the judges panel

Jon Culshaw, I believe.  Oh.  Not that sort of impressionist?

James

[JamesF]

8 minutes ago, JamesF said:

It is a prize for "image innovation", so perhaps should be open to more relaxed interpretation.  That photo leaves me with nothing though.  It gives no idea of scale or information about whether that is the entire work or just part of it.

A bit more:

https://juliehill.co.uk/Dark-River

https://juliehill.co.uk/Dark-River-I

https://juliehill.co.uk/Dark-River-II

https://juliehill.co.uk/Dark-River-III

James

[Captain Scarlet]

He should have at least taken some trouble to get M110 into focus

[vlaiv]

Such a passionate and intense thread.

For some comments, I simply can't even figure out if sarcasm is in question.

What strikes me the most is the level of legalism in many of the comments that is very different than most people views of what is allowed as astrophotographers interpretation of the image.

We demand good / pin point stars, technically good images, however when discussing other technical aspects of the image - like color - we allow ourselves to adjust color balance or saturation at will. Let's boost those blue tones as otherwise image looks too yellow / red (regardless if that is true color of the target) - because most people expect to see that kind of thing.

Let's kill off those greens in SHO image despite the fact that Ha signal is mapped to green channel and Ha is often most abundant and strongest signal of the three - simply because it looks nice and people are used to it.

Not to mention that people often employ processing techniques that they have no clue about what's been done to image / data. Yet we frown upon effect that is not only deliberate and understood but also technically demanding and very precisely executed.

How many of astrophotographers could calculate needed tilt to produce wanted depth of field simulation like one discussed here, given system parameters?

[Kinch]

Yes passionate because of the nature of the competion. It is not a competion for astrophotographers as such but many astrophotographers thought it was.  It is a competion for those with the tallent to capture Joe Public's attention... on a theme of astronomy. (Pull the attention of the masses here!.... then the sponsers "get their name in lights").

So, on a forum with many people putting hours and hours into trying to capture the night sky (with some degree of perceived accuracy) - the artistic approach is not what they wanted to see as a winning entry. Like I said...we got it wrong.....the competition is not for us dull unimaginative 'point & shoot' types.

It is exactly like the NASA APOD. The chosen images there, are not always 'good' technical images - but rather images that the astronomars can write something interesting about....again to capture the attention of Joe Public.

So...in the end...no point in complaining. Some of us are sad to see the winning image not being as we perceived a good 'astro' image.....but I guess we just forgot to read the rules and wasted outr time even submitting our "work"; our dull everyday (everynight!) photos of the night sky.

The winning image got it for a reason. I don't like the image (on any grounds) - but that says nothing much. The judges were looking for something that I cannot see......so I must now realise, that I will never be a winner of this particular competition. I won't moan about it.....I just won't bother putting in any image in the future (and then rest easy when next year's result is announced).

Having said that, the only thing I do really regret/dislike now is the name given to the competition.

 

[carastro]

Quote

this is clearly an art competition

Then they should stop calling it an Astrophotography contest, but instead call it an AstroArt competition.

Carole  

[Rusted]

The sponsor moved more product as a result of global publicity.

Job done!

 

[ollypenrice]

11 hours ago, david_taurus83 said:

Bit of harsh criticism on here? Im sure the author could have produced a more 'traditional' M31 if he wanted but he choose to do something different and he probably enjoyed capturing and producing it..

..and isn't that the whole point?

 

No, the point is that it won a competition calling itself, 'Astrophotographer of the Year.' Nobody wants to deny this person the right to experiment in whatever way they like and produce whatver image they like. The butt of the harsh criticism here is really the judging.

Olly

[tomato]

Sorry for the Connect 4 comment, but I had been playing the game earlier with my grand daughter, and that’s what the image said to me, loud and clear, nothing remotely Astro related.