Respecting the Light : The David Malin Approach

[astroron (Ron)]

To put a bit of levity into this discussion,I think they should be called the Picasso's.
The amount and shades of colours given to objects by "astro processors" is mind boggling.
I once saw an article,cant think where,but the title was something like
"Will the real Eta Carinae stand up" ?
The article went on to say that there is no true colour of just about any nebulae in the sky,it is all down to interpenetration.
I think the question was also directed at Jeff J Hester and his image taken with the Hubble Space Telescope of the "Pillars of Creation" in M16.
People use the Hubble pallet to make unbelievable images which are getting to be just about un decipherable.
I note a couple of posters in this thread have mentioned the "Scientific value"
What do they do with this scientific information?
Mike Sidonio's image of NGC 253 did not rely on colour,but the new found galaxy was in fact best seen in the negative.
I really don't enjoy images of nebula anymore as to me they have lost all semblance of what the object means to me,but then that is my choice.
I also note that sometimes the imagers/processors don't even know the name of the object they have taken.
Cheers

[gregbradley]

An IIS competition sounds like a great idea.

I don't think a panel of judges is a good idea. That's pre internet thinking.

Popular vote of the members with no panel of judges is the internet way. That would be the most meaningful result and no bias or criticism of the result is possible as after all the audience for the images here is the members of the site.

Greg.

[Andy01 (Andy)]

Well this thread has certainly prompted some spirited discussion! Rightly so as we're all very passionate about this hobby.

Personally I think we're very lucky to have someone of David's past professional experience as the judge. I emphasise the word professional as he did AP for a living, for decades, garnering much respect for his abilities.

As amateurs, it's really not for us to express sour grapes or second guess his choices or reasoning. We don't have the same level of professional experience, regardless of how much time or cash we have invested in our equipment. Enter or don't enter, it's our choice - but *****ing about seems unproductive.

As to the matter of narrowband colours etc. That's a seperate issue imo. David's comments about respecting the light were directed at the core of a nebula which he believed needed to be bright, so one could see where the light was coming from in that particular HaRGB image.

The scientific value of amateur images is a valid point as evidenced by Mike Sidonio's recent discovery of a previously unknown galaxy. A wonderful achievement, perhaps similar in some ways to the numerous comets discovered by Lovejoy et al.

However, it's unlikely that much actual 'science' can be read into an amateur Narrowband image, although the use of these filters does make it easier for an amateur to identify regions of S2, O3 & Ha etc. regardless of the colour palatte used. With a few exceptions, these images are primarily taken for the photographers own enjoyment and sharing in communities such as this forum and astronomy clubs, although some have commercialised their efforts as well.

Awards are there to motivate us to improve our skills, and to measure our abilities against others. As many of us work in isolation, awards bring us together in the spirit of friendly competition. I personally have learned a great deal from entering the Malins, the Moran Prize, the NPP and the Aipp Appas etc.

As to the proposed IIS awards, there are many online awards models in existance already. The Loupe and the Epson Pano awards are examples where a panel of experienced judges worldwide assess anonymously entered works, scoring from 50-100/100. Bronze (75-79) Silver (80-89) and Gold awards (90+) are given, as well as an overall highest scoring winner.

Imo though a panel should only be made up of very experienced forum members, whose knowlege and skills are recognised alongside their ability to communicate the value or fault in an image, to help improve the entrant's abilities.

The problem with these online models though is there is no opportunity to debate the merits or shortcomings of an image with one's fellow judges. In the Aipp model, a 'live' panel of 5 judges sit together and individually score an anonymously entered image from 50-100/100. The score is then averaged and announced. However the score can be challenged by a judge if he/she feels it's too low or high and a debate ensues. Following the often lively discussion, the scores are allowed to be re-entered, (the challengers score remains locked in) and the final scores are averaged and announced. It's a marvellous ststem, iniated in Australia which has since been widely copied worldwide.

Finally, I too had a few minutes with David Malin after the CWAS awards, and I asked him why he liked my winning deep space image. He said it was the strong combination of impact and aesthetics that caught his eye. Hope that's useful.

Cheers
Andy

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

... I don't think a panel of judges is a good idea. That's pre internet thinking.

Popular vote of the members with no panel of judges is the internet way. That would be the most meaningful result and no bias or criticism of the result is possible as after all the audience for the images here is the members of the site.

Greg.

I disagree Greg.

There are at least 3 judging models.

1. A popular vote. Problem is that people may have a bias for one photographer over another in spite of the quality of an image - this is practically human nature. Astroimages are typically not that anonymous (at least on the Australian scene) so each photographers style is evident and quite often identifiable, thus a bias can slip in.
2. A single (though learned) judge. The same bias problem can sneak in plus the winning image is less likely to have broad appeal because the images are judged on the basis of a single aesthetic. Someone can also learn what the judge likes to see and modify their own aesthetic to match, Though I won't call this unfair (because anyone can do it) it's certainly artificial.
3. A panel of knowledgeable judges with different aesthetics. To make even this fair, a strict and transparent set of judging criteria are also necessary to impart some objectivity into the process. Such criteria would need to be carefully crafted. This way no single person holds a monopoly over what represents a good image. The challenge for the photographer then is to make their images technically and aesthetically good in general, not just good enough to please one persons aesthetic. IMO this is the fairest way to adjudicate images.

On topic, respecting tonal ranges and relativities in an (RGB) image is one aspect of David's aesthetic (and mine as it happens), but there are many different facets to a good astrophotograph. To weight just one, seemingly, above all others as David seems to do, relegates all the other things of equal weight that go into the making of a good image.

Finally, one can try to ascribe David's colour aesthetic to scientific principles but that doesn't make sense to me. Why? Astrophotography, as it's represented in the DMs and most of the postings to the Deep Space section of this forum, is ART that merely resembles reality. It is NOT a science because of all the processing that's heaped on our datasets to be able to see a result and enhance it. Also, very few of us are astrophysicists! Who knows in what proportion colours are present in an object and at what intensity and saturation they are in reality unless you have an absolute frame of reference? Is that frame of reference what the eye perceives, what an 8m mirror can render or something in between? Is it processed or unprocessed? Is it monochrome through one of the myriad different filters we have available? Is it perhaps a composite using combinations of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 filters?

[multiweb (Marc)]

Always cracked me up how people can get so agro over such trivial things. Got a $70k scope and performance issues? Buy a goat. Get over it. Spent 10s of thousands over a period of time in buying and reselling gear and feel the need for perfection? Buy a bicycle and get out more.

It's a hobby. Meant to be enjoyed. Chilling out under the stars is the ultimate cool thing to do, whether you image and take something home to play with later on, or just want to have a look at it for hours.
Remember the first time you stuck your eye into an eye piece? Many of you seem to have forgotten.

There is enough sh|t going on in the real world to bring it in astro "competitions", who's got the biggest one, who's right and wrong, who wants to be the best, who wants to be first, yadiyadiya...

Relax and enjoy. Here's your new year's resolution right here. Deep breath. You'll live longer. Have a good one.

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Always cracked me up how people can get so agro over such trivial things. Got a $70k scope and performance issues? Buy a goat. Get over it. Spent 10s of thousands over a period of time in buying and reselling gear and feel the need for perfection? Buy a bicycle and get out more.

It's a hobby. Meant to be enjoyed. Chilling out under the stars is the ultimate cool thing to do, whether you image and take something home to play with later on, or just want to have a look at it for hours.
Remember the first time you stuck your eye into an eye piece? Many of you seem to have forgotten.

There is enough sh|t going on in the real world to bring it in astro "competitions", who's got the biggest one, who's right and wrong, who wants to be the best, who wants to be first, yadiyadiya...

Relax and enjoy. Here's your new year's resolution right here. Deep breath. You'll live longer. Have a good one.

......

The issue of science value has been raised in the discussion and I think that there is some science value in what we do. It is rarely direct (eg like Mike or Trevor or BOSS), but nonetheless valuable. In trying to understand what we image, we often greatly increase our own knowledge of the underlying physics and then, when we talk to others (formally or otherwise), some of that understanding will get a wider audience. Like any form of education, the impact can be unpredictable and occasionally far reaching - this is an exciting aspect of what we do. Respecting and understanding the light is inherent in increasing our own understanding - nothing to do with competitions of course, but competitions can force us to confront issues that we might otherwise gloss over, so they have a place.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

... nothing to do with competitions of course, but competitions can force us to confront issues that we might otherwise gloss over, so they have a place.

I disagree. Competitions bring the worst in people. Dealer sponsorships and vested interests, egomania, vain arguments, self credit and self promotion. Cooperation, sharing and learning promote a good environment for noobs and seasoned imagers/observers alike. A competitive attitude in a hobby kills all that for obvious reasons.

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I disagree. Competitions bring the worst in people. Dealer sponsorships and vested interests, egomania, vain arguments, self credit and self promotion. Cooperation, sharing and learning promote a good environment for noobs and seasoned imagers/observers alike. A competitive attitude in a hobby kills all that for obvious reasons.

yep, that is a convincing argument - I was wrong

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Here's your new year's resolution right here.

Only if you upgrade to a bigger camera.

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I disagree. Competitions bring the worst in people. Dealer sponsorships and vested interests, egomania, vain arguments, self credit and self promotion. Cooperation, sharing and learning promote a good environment for noobs and seasoned imagers/observers alike. A competitive attitude in a hobby kills all that for obvious reasons.

Ah come on Marc! No it doesn't. Competitiveness and cooperativeness are not mutually exclusive! ..... As long as I ALWAYS WIN and you keep telling me how great I am!!! Bahahahaha! Quick, cancel the Olympics!

Seriously, it does depend on the sportsmanship of the individual and whether they know how to be magnanimous in defeat and gracious in victory - most of us can do that but alas,some of us can't. Just ignore the people who can't. Personally, though I don't always want to compete, win or lose, it does act as an incentive for me to do better.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I disagree. Competitions bring the worst in people. Dealer sponsorships and vested interests, egomania, vain arguments, self credit and self promotion. Cooperation, sharing and learning promote a good environment for noobs and seasoned imagers/observers alike. A competitive attitude in a hobby kills all that for obvious reasons.

I disagree -

A competition makes people strive to do their best.

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by alpal

A competition makes people strive to do their best.

It makes them strive to win... which is not necessarily the same thing. See, for example, the heated discussion about the Astrobin IOTD:
http://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astr...otd-selection/

Cheers,
Rick.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by alpal

I disagree -

A competition makes people strive to do their best.

As Rick said to win. Period. Winning doesn't help anybody. Collecting awards or gloating or being "honored" doesn't help the community in the hobby and again I stress the word hobby. Sharing the way you do things to achieve a good result and explaining it when asked directly benefits everybody. Because one day even a noob will come around and find a better easier way to do it that you didn't even think about. And again everyone can replicate it and progress as a group of people sharing similar interests. That's a way cooler attitude than raving on about any award. That's what I call a winner.

[rally]

If competition fosters cooperation and creativity then that is great, but I think it could be argued that a competition where the competitors are pandering to the personal preferences of the sole judge is going to tend toward images that will become narrow in their breadth and less creative.

Since astrophotography is a very long term process - images are developed over months and even years - so this means that general image development might become stinted overall.

Some of the greatest images I have ever seen have come from people who have been creative and imaginative and used new techniques and processes to produce works that show us that astrophotography can be artistic and can be used to portray the same old subjects in 'new light'.
Or in some cases "new dark" !

Afterall it was David Malin himself who pioneered some of the revolutionary darkroom methods for enhancing detail in images in a novel way that pushed the boundaries.
It certainly was not a natural process and it was not necessarily designed to portray the subject in a realistic manner - it was used to bring out the detail.

Good luck to all who enter, but I will find it terribly sad if we see an ideological monotony in processing because the end goal has been just to win rather than push the boundaries.

I am sure we can respect the light while at the same time develop new ways to present old targets.

[TR (Terry)]

Well, that was interesting watching my original statement morph away from the original text. Observing various recollections shifting based on the last popular posting. Kind of like that Chinese whispers game.

Geezzzz Paul. Where did you get the notion that I was picking on you. I believe that my original text on this topic involving your images were giving you a complement. Stating that you were able to “process” your images to extract features and details that would not be seen otherwise in the original data. Anyway, i just wish people wouldn't read more into a statement than what is written.

Furthermore, I did not mention David Malin in my original text, nor did I mentioned HDR processing. Yes, I did mention suppressing blown highlights which is something we all do (if we are honest). I will not give examples as I do not want to be accused of picking on someone again.

My original text is purely a comment on the hypocritical use of a phrase that is often used to bolster a certain persons bizarre and competitive ego. Perhaps my images are not in the category as others, but I’m happy with the images that I create. I really enjoy sharing them with my wonderful wife, family, and friends. I love getting our under the stars with fellow imagers, looking up, and imaging the wonderful objects above. Watching this topic mutate where following comments made that have nothing to do with the original text shows people are not following the complete thread.

Personally, I like digging into the core of the Galaxy or bright nebula and exposing all those wonderful hidden treasures. That is why I have telescope. It’s for my enjoyment, an instrument that allows the exploration of the cosmos. Spaceships just cost too much and are very slow. Although, it would give some the opportunity to brag about their possessions. Several hours of data from a telescope in no way represents what you would see visually. I manipulate the data I have captured, and present it in a way that I find interesting. It’s art. After all, they are only pretty pictures. Why would I feel compelled to put artificial restrictions on an object’s presentation? Simply present an object that is aesthetically pleasing yourself. It is your work. You’re not working for someone else. Have fun with it.

Terry

[astroron (Ron)]

I think we have cross threaded here.
Terry, (TR) you are not even mentioned in this thread,not by name anyway.
You don't have a post in this thread
Cheers

[rat156]

Originally Posted by astroron

I note a couple of posters in this thread have mentioned the "Scientific value"
What do they do with this scientific information?

As one of the posters that made mention of the scientific value I'll tell you what I do with the information, everybody else will be different. I am a chemist (NOT a pharmacist, a chemist), as such, and with a little bit of further reading I know probably a bit more than the average Joe about the composition of nebulous clouds. The extra scientific information adds to my appreciation of the object being imaged because I understand, at least partly, it's genesis. I can then extrapolate this to us, our solar system and planet. I'm not pretending that I understand the Universe as well as say, Brian Cox or Carl Sagan but every piece of information gathered adds to this understanding. I love looking at the individual emissions of atoms represented as colours in my images. As a scientist I strive for this garnering of information in pretty much everything I do. So to answer your underlying question, I sort of do it out of habit.

Originally Posted by Shiraz

......

The issue of science value has been raised in the discussion and I think that there is some science value in what we do. It is rarely direct (eg like Mike or Trevor or BOSS), but nonetheless valuable. In trying to understand what we image, we often greatly increase our own knowledge of the underlying physics and then, when we talk to others (formally or otherwise), some of that understanding will get a wider audience. Like any form of education, the impact can be unpredictable and occasionally far reaching - this is an exciting aspect of what we do. Respecting and understanding the light is inherent in increasing our own understanding - nothing to do with competitions of course, but competitions can force us to confront issues that we might otherwise gloss over, so they have a place.

I agree completely, when I explain some of the images to my work colleagues, some of whom are also chemists, but pretty much all are scientists, all gain greater understanding from the science behind the images. Net gain of knowledge = good thing. But, to say that an image is of lesser quality (which competitions naturally have to do) merely because it doesn't fit some arbitrary phrase, dismissing any other qualities it may have is, IMHO, a very narrow view.

Originally Posted by alpal

I disagree -

A competition makes people strive to do their best.

Unfortunately competitions also bring out the worst in people, we've all seen it, it's ugly. I played local cricket for many years, in the lower grades, mainly because it was fun. I was never very good, but the main reason I retired was that some of the other teams in the competition would actually cheat, openly, just to win (OK I was also old, slow and bits of me kept breaking), the enjoyment was lost. I only hope that those that strive to win the Malins don't lose their enjoyment of AP along the way.

I love AP, it frustrates the hell out of me at times, but I love it. I just wish I had darker skies. I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but many of the people here who struggle with the "respecting the light" concept image from urban or suburban areas (hence many use narrowband imaging), perhaps because there appears to be little respect for light (pollution) in these built up areas it's difficult to visualise the concept? Discuss ... nicely please.

Cheers
Stuart

[codemonkey (Lee)]

There's natural and then there's right; and who are we to say what is right? You can strive for a more natural look, or strive for something especially psychedelic. I think a couple of others have hit the nail on the head here: do whatever you want, it's just a hobby, try to have fun with it.

[Slawomir (Suavi)]

Interesting discussion that allowed me to ponder and reflect on a few things - thank you!

In a way all people who point a telescope/binos up or just simply look up do show appreciation of light that travelled vast distances, and by such noticing at least a small amount of light is being rescued (unless you have a light bucket!) from falling on the ground unnoticed. And some of those otherwise unnoticed photons get recorded and presented in various ways so others have an opportunity to see what's out there and appreciate Cosmos according to their own capacity and understanding.
And if some people stand out because of the way such space data is processed and presented and thus receive recognition for their work, then good on them and hopefully they will continue inspiring all of us.

May the Force of Gravity be always with you.
S.

[astroron (Ron)]

Quote)
As one of the posters that made mention of the scientific value I'll tell you what I do with the information, everybody else will be different. I am a chemist (NOT a pharmacist, a chemist), as such, and with a little bit of further reading I know probably a bit more than the average Joe about the composition of nebulous clouds. The extra scientific information adds to my appreciation of the object being imaged because I understand, at least partly, it's genesis. I can then extrapolate this to us, our solar system and planet. I'm not pretending that I understand the Universe as well as say, Brian Cox or Carl Sagan but every piece of information gathered adds to this understanding. I love looking at the individual emissions of atoms represented as colours in my images. As a scientist I strive for this garnering of information in pretty much everything I do. So to answer your underlying question, I sort of do it out of habit.

Thankyou Stuart,that was the sort of thing I wanted to hear.
Cheers