Royal Greenwich Astrophotographer of the Year

[Andy01]

Seems team Oz has done well in IAPOTY 2020 :D
Several IIS contributors incl. Mike Sidonio, Andy Casely, Martin Pugh, Niall McNeill, Diego Colonollo, Jay Evans, Terry Robison, Nina Zhao & myself were all shortlisted this year.
There may be some others as well, apologies if I've left anyone off this list :D
Here's a sample of the shortlisted images. (https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/astronomy-photographer-year-2020-shortlist-images-revealed/?image=13&type=gallery&gallery=1&embedded_slideshow=1&fbclid=IwAR07kjvQyQbTxL6Z6LHoV8SWds L8X6zho-K8IefjcOgZVQcG7y3uOPfLEkA)

[Peter Ward]

I also got a gong this year, with just one entry :)
....but am not allowed to say much more at this time ;)

[Andy01]

Woohoo! Congratulations & good luck! :thumbsup:

[andyc]

oooOOOooo. Well done Peter! And best of luck 😉

it's a pretty set of pictures released, and an honour to be on the shortlist again.

[barx1963]

That selection is a much better sample than is showing on the Greenwich Obs website. Well done to all the Aussies and good luck in the judging.

Malcolm

[Paul Haese]

Made the shortlist myself too. First time for a while.

[JA]

Good on you all guys, and the best of luck.

Best
JA

[Paul Haese]

Well the winners were announced this morning and I was pleased to see a lot of images from Australians in all the sections. In the Galaxy section there were a few of us who were shortlisted, myself included. I think Mark Hanson's image was spectacular and surprised it did not win.

Odd selection of winning images really.

[Peter Ward]

Congrats to the Oz contingent. 5200 entrants from over 90 countries this year. Wow.

[multiweb]

Some beautiful entries. The winning shot is a bit odd. :shrug:

[Lognic04]

Winning image is a bit of a slap in the face to all of those who try night after night to get perfectly focused and even stars - not to mention the image of Andromeda itself is rather...average?

[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. :shrug:

[jahnpahwa]

Interesting hearing him talk about 3D printing spacers for his image train to generate the effect... does anyone know how (in theory or practice) this is achieved? Reminded me of "tilt-shift" terrestrial photography.

Kids photos were pretty impressive, too!


And well done Peter, cool interview too. Do you reckon the smoke haze have much of an impact on the image?

[Peter Ward]

Is the Pope a Catholic? :)

A definitive yes.

Sydney was shrouded in smoke for months (I laughed when the sub-titles came up with "shredded"). I tried, time and time again to get more data, but more often than not, came up blank.

I dare say last summer's fires in Australia were the greatest environmental disaster in modern history to date.

The full affects of this are yet to be realised.

It struck me, using colour palette from press imagery was a no-brainer. I'm glad the judges agreed. :D

[multiweb]

I guess what Logan is saying is about the outer edge stars out of focus to give the impression of depth. It's a very stylised photo, out of the box thinking. I too thought at first the comp was for excellence in astrophotography then quickly had a look at last year winner and realised it is judged on creativity rather than technical achievement. Fair enough.

[Peter Ward]

I've long held the view the CWAS/Mailn's were the " technical excellence" comp and Greenwich the "creative" comp.

The fact either forum exists to showcase astro-images is amazing. There are few, if any, other major forums to show the world what AP is all about.

Now that Canon has pulled out, I fear the future of the CWAS/Malins is bleak without a sponsor. :sadeyes:

[multiweb]

Well it is a technique. Like colour balancing a HST palette or sharpening/noise reduction, starless, etc...I wouldn't call it plagiarism. We all replicate what someone else started and put our twist on it. Maybe a lot of people are unhappy about the winning shot as it must come as a bit of a surprise but as Peter says, if creativity is the criteria for a winner then it does.

[Andy01]

Reading a few FB threads to guage international opinion of the overall winner & came across this link. Seems plagiarism lives on ..... https://petapixel.com/2013/12/18/til...CTzmA6zrAqWbEA

Oh and Peter, Congratulations on your Category Win, but it seems a bit churlish to slap down 15 y/o Logan for sharing his honest opinion :shrug:
__________________

[Paul Haese]

I agree. Nothing belongs to anyone else. The techniques we use regularly were someones idea once. I do however think that the competition should outline what is considered to be an astrophotograph.

My comment about the winning images in some categories was directed mainly toward the notion that I personally would not have picked several of the winners. I felt that within a few categories there were better images. An example of which was in the solar system section where there were many images of planets at high res with artistic flare demonstrated and yet a wide field image of a conjunction won. To me the image does not have impact or anything I would describe as being of winning value. Same as the galaxy category. I think Mark Hanson's image was spectacular and would have taken hours of collection and processing to produce. However, I am not one of the judges and they chose it. You have to expect that what should win the competition or category will not often be chosen because the judges see something else.

[Peter Ward]

Humm that Petapixel link came up blank for me.

Maybe I was terse, but I make no apologies for my response to Logan. It seems manners are poorly taught these days.

As for plagiarism, where do you begin? As an example, the starless nebulae
technique was first used about 12 years ago...but recent software tools have made it very easy to do and quite popular.

I suspect I was the first to use the 360 degree panorama time-exposure technique (also 12 years ago) by remapping a circular fisheye image to a rectilinear one. Won me a Malin innovation prize. When it subsequently became an APOD, people improved on the method and 360 panoramas are now hugely popular.

That said, we are all influenced by the work of others, but that debate is best held elsewhere.

[Andy01]

Apologies if that didn't work earlier - here is the link again https://petapixel.com/2013/12/18/tilt-shift-effect-applied-photographs-cosmos-create-tiny-universe/?fbclid=IwAR0E1ieIqfAIJQ-nNDi8rK2u3sMcKnxUMRVSubAAhBvY3e1wd-0-py9dBxM

[Lognic04]

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

[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.

[Peter Ward]

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

[barx1963]

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/astronomy-photographer-year/galleries/2020/stars-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]

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 :rofl:

[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]

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]

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]

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]

Just a wee small note,

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

[andyc]

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]

:lol:

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]

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]

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]

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]

Still an oven beats matches. ;)

[DavidTrap]

Touché :lol:

[Andy01]

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!"....:lol::lol::lol:

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! :D

..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 (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160624.html) 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

[DavidTrap]

Wise comments Andy.

DT

[Peter Ward]

For those who are still interested....

I've also uploaded a high quality copy of my entry
here on my shamelessly self promoting observatory home page (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/bardenridgeobs.html) :)

(scroll down to get to the picture)

[astroron]

I just spent about 20 minutes going through your site and images Peter.
Very interesting and a brilliant collection of images.
Thanks for sharing. :thanx:
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

Thank you. The page and gallery needs some further updating and a new look, but glad you enjoyed looking around.