Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
There is also a good deal plain an simple plagiarism that goes on with images posted on the web.
Amazing how the object of interest has Hubble like details but the rest of the field is filled with low resolution blobs and the poster is too dim to realize their dodgy image is shouting out : "this is a fake"
One would hope if entered into a contest the judges would spot such clumsy efforts and cull them accordingly.
David Malin is a master at this, but even he admitted the "fakes" are getting better and more difficult to spot. He even suggested having a new category: best fake.
Rest assured if there is a dollar to be had, there will also be those who will cheat to get it.
I have yet to see any 80mm telescope, even with the best AI sharpening, out-resolve a 0.5 metre class instrument.
While there are no prohibitions to over processing, in a contest environment my hope is the judges will spot the difference without much fuss and consider works more deserving.
|
Spot on Peter. I'm one of the IOTD judges on Astrobin, and there was a lengthy discussion about this image behind the scenes. Initially the image was called out, but some have rallied to the photographers' defence suggesting this is result of extensive overuse of Topaz in processing. Personally, as an experienced Topaz user for the past year, I'm in your camp - regardless of it being awarded APOD & other accolades, I'm firmly convinced that there is a mix of professional and amateur data blended here and attempt has been made to mask this in processing.
My overall thought here though is... Why bother?
