Royal Greenwich Astrophotographer of the Year

[Andy01 (Andy)]

Apologies if that didn't work earlier - here is the link again https://petapixel.com/2013/12/18/til...e1wd-0-py9dBxM

[Lognic04 (Logan)]

Originally Posted by Andy01

Apologies if that didn't work earlier - here is the link again https://petapixel.com/2013/12/18/til...e1wd-0-py9dBxM

Also - type into google "Andromeda tilt shift" for similar images. Not going to comment

[Lognic04 (Logan)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Really?

I am sure the overall winner....who is now about 20,000 Pacific pesos richer....doesn't give a toss about about some bloke's opinion in the antipodes who's calling it "average" .

Winners are grinners.

Don't like it? Fine.

Think you can do better?

Then toss your hat in the ring next year and prove it.

Apologies if I may have offended anybody - Just not the image I would have picked, and I should have worded my comment differently. Of course a huge congratulations to all the winners regardless.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Lognic04

Apologies if I may have offended anybody - Just not the image I would have picked, and I should have worded my comment differently. Of course a huge congratulations to all the winners regardless.

No worries. I have no doubt in a few years your images will make us grumpy-old-man efforts look like cave paintings.

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

First off, huge congratulations to Peter for his category winning image!! I loved it personally, more so when I understood the backstory!!
On the Overall Winner image, I am not a fan. I think astrophotography should have multiple aims, but the main one is to convey some interesting information about reality. Now that doesn't mean that only images that conform to a technical standard or a classic view of astro imaging are valid. For example, one of the shortlisted images in the same category that Peter won was called "Stunning Sirius" (you can see it about half way down this page https://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/astro...rs-and-nebulae ). Now this is a series of shots taken with a regular camera lens combo and defocussed. Not a "classic" astro image.... but it tells us something interesting by highlighting the effect of atmosphere on how we see stars, showing the flickering colours that we get in the bright stars. It tells a story! The winning image of Andromeda while technically interesting conveys an entirely false view of the scale of universe so the story it tells has no foundation in reality, pretty maybe, but not exciting that I enjoyed!!

[jahnpahwa (JP)]

Originally Posted by Lognic04

Apologies if I may have offended anybody - Just not the image I would have picked, and I should have worded my comment differently. Of course a huge congratulations to all the winners regardless.

Zero need to apologize, mate! I can't believe that anyone would be offended by your point of view there.

Peter's response was heavy handed and only serves to stifle conversation from you, but also others who read it. Your opnion is as valid as anyone's. Newcomers, old stagers, these forums should be for everyone, and I'd argue that youngsters who are into at your age are among the most important people to encourage discussion from.


These awards, and the Malin awards are matters of opnion and subjectivity. They matter only as far as you value the opinion of the judges. For some people, thats a lot, for others, not much. And i guess past results have an impact on that, to either raise or lower the "popular value" placed on them. This in turn impacts who will submit their work.



Like you say, googling tilt shift Andromeda demonstrates that the winning pic is one of many very, very similar images taken and posted online. It doesn't stand out among those, so for me, yes, i agree average. And i dont think i could do better in the judges eyes, and i dont care at all... and that doesn't mean that I'm not able to share thoughts on it

[Martin Pugh]

What gall you have Peter.

you post this:
Sorry, not a fan of selective processing.

The end result is a total distortion/fabrication of the physical processes going on in the object.

I am very much an advocate of "respecting the light".

Non-linear transforms are absolutely fine, so long as they are applied globally and preserve the relativities of the object's intrinsic flux

With that level of "interpretation" you might as well get out the airbrush tool and draw the scene or use crayons...or whatever

No law against it....but this crosses too many lines for my liking.

Then you colour an image based on magazine shots of the fires, saturate the hell out of it, remove the stars too right? and then hit it with what was it, the 'oil paint' filter? Everything you said in that post is utterly 180 degrees away from what you entered into this competition. What a hypocrite!

I agree entirely with international opinion on the winning image; it is low quality image of M31, and you dont need 3D printed shims of any sort, there is a tilt-shift filter in Photoshop that will do it for you, exactly how that image appears.

What a waste of time for those who are truly talented in astrophotographpy.

Martin

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

What gall you have Peter.
.... What a hypocrite!


Martin

My (winning) image started as dammed-nice straight h-alpha image. i.e shades of grey.

I then applied a global false colour palette, which respected intensities, but mapped them as false-colour. No crayons there.

Out of curiosity I ran a global filter (Star net) over the image to show only the nebulosity.
OK agreed. The stars were totally disrespected/removed but the underlying data was not.

It was at that point the image reminded me of Australian Press images of last summer's fires but the palette was off.

I then changed the mapping to reflect the press imagery, but it was a linear map, making light yellow the highest intensity, red for medium down to black for zero signal.
No hypocrisy there. Jesus, even NASA map monochrome images in a similar way.

Greenwich rules do not allow Photoshop artistic effects filters, hence NO oil paint render was applied to my ROG entry image.
So get your facts straight before accusing me of hypocrisy.

Sorry you didn't win Martin, but, seriously mate, pull your head in!


P.S. For those interested punters not so well versed in image processing:

I applied the same technique to my APOTY h-alpha image
that is also used to “colourise” monochrome h-alpha solar images.

This approach is totally different to “selective processing” which I am not a fan of.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Regardless of where this thread is heading, I’ll offer my 2 cents which can be rounded down to being worthless.

Peter has already stated he believes these awards reward creativity. He’s been clever to prepare an image that is not only visually impressive, but also has a narrative that relates to a important social issue. All credit to him for playing to the audience.

As I stated in another comment about this competition, I believe the judges choose images that will be appealing to the mainstream press so they’ll be picked up as a good news story and raise the profile of the awards. Ultimately, not everyone appreciates a technically perfect image.

Just need to work out what deep sky object resembles the spike protein of SARS-COV-2 for next years competition.

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Firstly, no opinion is worthless nor should it be denigrated as some have done in this thread. This subject is doing the rounds on FB as well .. with to no surprise the same outcome. When you look at the credentials of the Judges and read their comments you can see the outcome. Well done to all the winners and the runner ups ... hell well done to all those that put in the effort and submitted an entry.

[PeterM]

Let's be fair here, the winning image is simply stunning to look at on a big monitor. He won and he was judged as deserving to win, it is a damn good image to look at. Labelling one competition as creative and another technical seems to me to be an each way bet...oh I didn't gong this year because....There are some nice amateur images out there, but that's all they mostly are.. pretty pics and almost always the usual suspects cooked in a different oven. Sure, this years winner presented M31 but it wasn't boring. Seems to me that it's caused a bit of disruption in the "old guard" a needed breathe of fresh air. Bravo to the winner.
If imagers want to be in the game next year then their game needs to evolve...it maybe the only venue left to present their talents...and win some big pesos!

Conratulations also to Peter Ward and of course all some 5000ish who entered.

[h0ughy (David)]

Just a wee small note,

Keep this discussion civil please, personal attacks will be met with a holiday

[andyc (Andy)]

I'm not really surprised at the intensity of conversation here, quite predictable given the judges' selections! I got to chat to the winner, other entrants and some of the judges in the after-event Zoom chat, which was very enlightening. First and foremost, the competition is not about precise representations of objects, but about images that strike a chord or make you think a bit more. In that sense, look at art exhibitions where the abstract is more common than the hyperreal, or nature photo competitions, where your subject has to be doing something unusual/remarkable, rather than being just a super-sharp image of a cow! Astrophoto comps are odd in the sense that many who do them are strongly scientific or technically minded, and fail to really catch the imagination of a wide audience (something I quite routinely trip up on). But the judging is looking for the remarkable, inventive or imaginative, or stories that resonate, much like photography competitions of all kinds around the world. And we get cranky when technical precision isn't rewarded! For example, my best Jupiter from last year, serene, sharp and complete with Io, Red Spot and small flake didnt get short-listed (though I'd hang it on my wall)... but my greyscale Moon, Saturn and Saturn moons did get short-listed. Its the second year in a row where what I though was not my best actually did well - and hindsight kind of slaps me around the face to say why!

The judges note they get a lot of good technical images, and even if we can tell a Sidonio from an Olsen, Pugh or a Placidus or from the rest, they aren't so 'remarkable' in a competition sense because the subject is often stubbornly unchanging, and quite a few people can get somewhat close to that standard. Though I do feel a big twinge in seeing the planetary winners, I think I see the judges thinking (social distancing for the winner, unusual far away scene for the runner up), I'd not have picked either myself. But its not my choice, and I'll try and get inventive next year!

I quite like the winning image because it makes people think a bit, though obviously its not a crisp scientific image. He also actually imaged it that way with a tilted sensor, so no trivial amount of skill for that artistic shot more real than applying graded blurs to pro images in Photoshop (and hardly plagiarism either!). I like Peter's, because of the fire context, really clever approach (same palette as some longwave IR planetary pros use, it's rather striking). Sneaky so-and-so for thinking of it, but it catches the mind and the eye, with some good real image data underlying it. The greatest trick was getting the kookaburras to pose in the video interview, the other photographers were asking... how did you do it!

Congrats Peter and other shortlist/winners around here.
Clear (non-smoky) skies everyone!

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by andyc

........ The greatest trick was getting the kookaburras to pose in the video interview, the other photographers were asking... how did you do it!......

They were waiting for their daily Smörgåsbord. (we live opposite the Woronora river valley....and hand-feed a few of them)

Their names are Larry, Curly, Moe, Chico, Harpo, Groucho, and Zeppo (there are one or two FIFO Aussie Myna etc. itinerants as well.

[carneb (Barry)]

Originally Posted by barx1963

"Stunning Sirius" (you can see it about half way down this page https://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/astro...rs-and-nebulae ).

I notice going through the list that a lot of images have been taken with quite expensive equipment. My question is, as a relatively inexperienced astrophotographer, are the images good because of the expensive equipment, or are they good because they've been taken by experienced people who over time have upgraded to use expensive equipment? (in other words it's the person taking the photo's and not necessarily the equipment that has made them good?)

[Atmos (Colin)]

Originally Posted by carneb

I notice going through the list that a lot of images have been taken with quite expensive equipment. My question is, as a relatively inexperienced astrophotographer, are the images good because of the expensive equipment, or are they good because they've been taken by experienced people who over time have upgraded to use expensive equipment? (in other words it's the person taking the photo's and not necessarily the equipment that has made them good?)

It’s predominantly the latter. You give a professional portrait photographer a phone, a couple of lamps and some aluminium foil and I can guarantee that they’ll get better photos than me with a studio and $50,000 of equipment

[DavidTrap (David)]

Originally Posted by carneb

I notice going through the list that a lot of images have been taken with quite expensive equipment. My question is, as a relatively inexperienced astrophotographer, are the images good because of the expensive equipment, or are they good because they've been taken by experienced people who over time have upgraded to use expensive equipment? (in other words it's the person taking the photo's and not necessarily the equipment that has made them good?)

You've answered you're own question - good gear helps, but you've got to know how to use it and you probably don't buy good gear unless you're keen and have been at this caper for a while.

To put it another way, do you compliment a chef for the meal you just ate, or their oven?

DT

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

To put it another way, do you compliment a chef for the meal you just ate, or their oven?

Still an oven beats matches.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Still an oven beats matches.

Touché

[Andy01 (Andy)]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

To put it another way, do you compliment a chef for the meal you just ate, or their oven?

DT

Lol, exactly - sometimes people look at the portrait photos on my studio wall & tell me "Gee you must have a good camera!" to which I reply, "it's not the camera mate, it's the 30+ years of skill knowing how to use it, and telling the subject what to do & when to do it" - and then I say "you would't eat at a fancy restaurant and tell the chef he must have a great stovetop!"....

Seriously though, having been an entrant with a modicum of success in photo comps for the past 30years, I can say this. Yes, good gear helps, but it can't buy results.
Without trying to sound like complete tosser, I won a Malin in 2015 with my under $10K rig against serious imagers with $100K+ rigs.
It ain't watcha use it's the way that you use it!

..and there's a certain X factor on the judging day. Judges who see something new and out of the box get exited, it's just human nature. This year they rewarded IAPOTY to a wacky tilt shift Andromeda.
Equally, Peter's very stylized version of NGC 3576 had a great and topical backstory - a good story always gives the judges something to talk about and relate to.
My Sagittarius Sunflowers APOD image also gave the pro photo judges a story about how Van Gogh might have seen those nebulae, and piqued their interest to reward it with a coveted rare gold at 93/100.

Last year they awarded a (frankly bizarre imo) lunar eclipse using a new and untried method, not my thing but the entrant is laughing all the way to the bank!
You can try new things and new techniques and sometimes be the rooster or more often be the feather duster - it's just how it is!

That all being said, my personal mantra is "You cannot be an artist unless you're a true craftsman first" ie: learn & master the rules - then bend, shape and manipulate the heck out of them!

In pro photography judging, you may have the most perfectly exposed, tack sharp and well printed image of a somewhat boring seen it all before traditional subject - and it will probably peak around 80/100. Or you may have a dynamic, original and impactful, smack you in the head wow image that exhibits a few flaws and the judges will be well in the 90's and looking to score it higher during a debate.

Combine all the above with technical excellence and you're looking at a prize winning image!

Exactly the same goes for Insight IAPOTY, a tack sharp, perfectly exposed giga data image of a tried & true seen it 10,000 times before subject likely won't get up - but innovation will probably rule.
Not so much for the Malins perhaps in my experience, it's simply the nature of the judging panel(s) on the day.

Hope that helps - if thats of interest tune in the Astro Imaging Channel on Monday 5th October, when I'll be discussing exactly this topic in detail.
Here is the link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlc5qKJKRJk

Cheers

Andy