I thought it might be prudent in view of recent discussions, to give a brief outline to the "Malin's"judging. Images are de-identified, but due the social media/web promotion by some entrants some images might still be recognised. Best advice here is don't publish image entries if you want to your work to remain incognito.
In any event images are *always* judged on their merits.
Because of the rules (i.e. no cut and paste composites with disparate lighting) images are examined with some scrutiny to ensure the light is being respected. Some entries have even undergone astrometric checks to ensure their veracity....it's astrophotography as opposed to photoshop competition after all
Many image technical flaws and "fakes" are also revealed as a result. The latter is fatal, but if the aesthetic of an image is remarkably powerful, then small technical flaws can be overlooked.
This judging process takes time and simply can't be done on the fly IMHO.
It should also be stated that popular targets are invariably intrinsically beautiful (often bright) objects. While they can be "done to death", truly excellent renditions are actually not that common and require exceptional conditions, equipment or technique to produce a standout image. These indeed can be deserving of kudos.....if you have absolutely "nailed it" or created a new twist on an old favourite then don't be afraid to enter it.
Lastly, having an "on trend" photoshop NB palette or filter won't lead to a standout image. It will be lost in the pack with who haven't realised the game has already moved on. However a sublimely accurate colour image that reveals a hidden or subtle astrophysical process and can often surprise and delight even the most jaded judge.
well done to all.
