 ...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
|
Hello members of the AstroBin Beta Testers group, I got this request several times now, and I myself agree. However, I realize that it could be a controversial decision so I'd like to ask your opinion quickly. Many people want to enforce equipment and acquisitions when submitting an image for IOTD/TP consideration. This would mean, in practice:
I didn't do this before because acquisition sessions were harder to input with the old form, but since the new form the fill rate has been much higher (as well as it has massively improved since the new equipment database and form). On one hand I absolutely like this idea: a core principle of AstroBin (arguably the most "core" principle) is that images should be accompanied by data. It's why I started this project 12 years ago. On the other hand I guarantee that many people won't like it because now they have to do more work to fill in the data. Yes, I will totally say "Then don't submit your image to the IOTD/TP if you don't want to fill in the data", I know. Anyway, what do you guys think? As usual, thank you all so much for your help. It's tough doing it all alone, and two eyes and one brain is not enough, so I appreciate your contributions! Salvatore |
3.80
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| I think requiring this information is beneficial. When I was starting out I loved to look at the IOTD pictures and see what everyone was using to create such fantastic images. I think having that information available helps show aspiring images what is possible with a given set of equipment. |
9.63
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I'd agree. If you want to be recognized, than putting forth a little effort shouldn't be a problem. Simple as. |
1.20
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Salvatore, I absolutely agree that data on equipment and acquisition is essential to the IOTD/TP process. As a submitter and reviewer, I will not consider an image for IOTD unless the equipment is specified. Clear skies, Kevin Dixon |
...
·
|
|---|
|
Do you guys think that this added friction might reduce the volume of images submitted for consideration and affect the process negatively? Again, this probably a non-issue: we probably don't want images where the photographer didn't bother to input the data. |
6.06
...
·
|
|---|
| Good idea, resistance may occur but it is the right direction. |
|
9.63
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene: Maybe, but certainly not negatively. I can't forsee any way this could be a negative adjustment. You're simply holding them to a standard. |
0.90
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I agree with previous posters: I think it's one of the core features of astrobin to be able to see images in combination with acquisition details. This hobby is all about learning (from others). This definitely includes what to expect out of equipment and acquisition details. I'm always disappointed, when I find great images without acquisition details. This would be especially true, if this image was awarded IOTD. Furthermore, so much effort is put into image acquisition and processing. Filling in some figures on the data is usually a very small additional effort in relation. Robert |
4.13
...
·
|
|---|
| I support this proposal |
6.49
...
·
|
|---|
| I am in favour if your proposal, Salvatore, echoing the reasoning of the others. Matthias |
3.82
...
·
|
|---|
|
I agree, I like to see acquisition details. With the equipment database in place, I don't think this is a huge burden for IOTD consideration. Loran |
5.68
...
·
|
|---|
|
I completely agree, having the minimum information on the type of instrument that was used is a form of sharing and learning for other users. I even sometimes search in the search bar with the name of the image to check the instrument with which the photo was taken when I have a doubt. In conclusion, it's a very good idea. |
4.37
...
·
|
|---|
|
Totally agree, I often use the equipment database and the requirement to have data for IOTD considderation will hopefully make the data in the database better/more complete Michael |
10.48
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I totally agree with this Salvstore. And for telling you the truth, I already have judged based on this priciple. Christoph |
4.44
...
·
|
|---|
|
Hi Salvatore, I totally agree on equipment and acquisition as important to selecting for the IOTD/TP process. As a submitter, I do not promote an image unless the equipment is provided, and acquisition would be helpful as well. This might be an issue for those who purchase data or acquire them from others who might have not recorded acquisition details on older data. So at the least, I would say to enforce equipment details? CS Gowri |
0.00
...
·
|
|---|
|
I totally agree with the need to capture acquisition data. There's a lot to learn about exposure times and the filters used, and I'm one of the first to be frustrated when I like an image and the data is missing. So, yes, data capture should be a prerequisite for submission to IOTD. Francis |
1.91
...
·
|
|---|
|
I support this implementation. Honestly, in general I am often disappointed when browsing Astrobin and there is little to no information added to some images... Georg |
9.96
...
·
|
|---|
|
I also agree that the imaging details are essential for the correct image evaluation. If one has used 24" CDK, other has used 8" and the second image is close to the first one... Which one is better? ;) Without the imaging details for the panel will be harder to know that the first one is not knowing what he is doing... |
0.00
...
·
|
|---|
|
Absolutely yes! for me it is important to fill in the form, especially for the IOTD which is seen by the greatest number. When I started and I didn't know much about it, Astrobin helped me a lot to choose an instrument and based me on exposure and acquisition times. |
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
| I agree as well. Data should be included. |
3.01
...
·
|
|---|
| It would be beneficial for all of us. |
2.41
...
·
|
|---|
|
Agree with requiring it. Helps everyone learn and assists to validate that the photographer is the original producer of the data and/or image. I never post an image without acquisition details as I know how useful it has been for me when viewing other folks work. |
2.94
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I support Salvatore's approach and am in favor of only including recordings in the evaluation of which a minimum amount of data is known. As a submitter, I expect transarency and technical plausibility from the images that are to be included in the judging, even at the lowest selection level. |
2.81
...
·
|
|---|
| I totally support this idea |
11.22
...
·
|
|---|
| I support this 100%. i actually didn’t realized it wasn’t mandatory… |
