7.22
...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
|
I'm seeing it very often: really beautiful photos... with descriptions that seem to be a copy-paste from ChatGPT. It's not that there's anything wrong with the shared information but I feel that they lack the factor that make those images unique: the creator's input. Any of us can find/create such descriptions with a few clicks/prompts. I wish that all astrophotographers cared to spend a couple of minutes writing something about their image, what makes it special, how did they end up selecting the target, framing, capturing, editing... or just about anything, but something from them. Thoughts? |
2.11
...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Franco, I agree with you, I quite enjoy reading a write-up of the acquisition, editing, problems that were encountered along the way etc. In a way it's like I'm reading part of the person's journey within this hobby/profession and it gives me a chance to learn about equipment that I don't currently have or techniques that I haven't tried yet. Astrophotography is quite a difficult and niche activity and in taking the images, we know what we're imaging (roughly speaking) so when published onto a platform like this to similar people, the chances are that they too roughly know what the image is. For example, I'd be surprised if a user on here came across an image of the Horsehead Nebula and didn't know that "The Horsehead Nebula (also known as Barnard 33 or B33) is a small dark nebula in the constellation Orion" (taken from Wikipedia), so putting that in the description seems a bit redundant to me. But I suppose that's just my opinion. I get some people might use their gallery on here as a means of sharing their images with others that perhaps don't know as much about these objects as the average astrophotographer might do. |
4.51
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Dan R: I think this is quite spot on. Also, the search for information about various objects within an image can be quite exciting. I mostly spend hours and hours doing research and finding out/learning about my targets and objects that happens to be there as well. So for me it's a journey that starts when I select the FOV on my Asiair, then it ends when I've researched the objects and done a write up about whatever I personally find interesting and want to display. Just like here or to a lesser extent here. Astrobin is much more than just a community to me it also serves as a sort of portfolio. Images are viewable for anyone and containing information, identifiers etc can be helpful to anyone stumbling upon them. It's also a nice way to document your own journey and how you progress. To me this is about what I enjoy, not what anyone else might like or not. To do so I use various sources, but often a Wiki might be very helpful as it can contain a lot of good information and I'm by no means a scientist so I have no basis to make any comments without the use of external sources. That's my rationale at least. As to AI generated texts I have never liked them either. They are very obvious 99% of the time with very exaggerated language (especially adjectives). But then again, it's not my image so I'm not in a position to decide what they should or could do, I don't really see it much though tbh. Perhaps on various Facebook groups. If that's what makes them feel good, then go for it. But personally I wouldn't give it much of a read. Neither would I care enough to think much about it either I think. |
4.37
...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
| I have often wondered what to do with the description box. Do I add details for the AP community or for the general public? Maybe we need two text boxes, one for object information and another for technical comments. |
7.32
...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Franco Grimoldi: I am not so sure that what seems to be AI always actually is. For many objects, epically the less common ones, there are very limited sources of information out there. Given such limited sources, it is not at all surprising that descriptions on many such images have a great deal in common. For my part, I always search the web for object information and try to present relevant information in my own way with as little copy/paste as possible. I also try to link to any academic papers that I can find. This might appear in some cases to be AI generated/acquired but since I do not use AI for anything (other than things like BlurX), at least in my case, it never is. |
|
7.32
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Tony Gondola: That is a good idea. I tend more toward presenting object information but some folks (Kevin Morefield comes to mind) often present lots of processing detail. Depending on the interests of the viewer, they might be more interested in one or the other so having separate sections would make things easier. |
9.12
...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Bill McLaughlin:Franco Grimoldi: I agree with Bill. Most of us have no formal education in astronomy or asrtophysics, and will refer heavily to whatever NASA / ESA etc descriptions of these objects are. Very difficult not to sound "canned" when presenting that information. But I agree going further into processing would be nice. I especially like reading those when it comes to massive collaborations. |
1.81
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Dan R: Totally agree with the ´journey´aspect - literally at the moment - as I am using a travel rig in Peru right now, and considering the change from OSC to mono. I like to add processing notes that will be useful for me (and others) in years to come both for planetary and DSO work. No detailed workflow, but just a few notes as reminder about a trick or process I used at the time. I´ve also found a few inconsistencies in the literature about nomenclature and magnitude - so I try and point these out to. |
5.21
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I don’t really think using AI is an issue for writing the image description, I am more concerned about the fast pace of AI processing tools, that will make any cheap telescope with not so great optics, produce “image of the day” quality images, is this not a worry to you guys..? more than just using to write the scientific details of an object.. Lol, maybe it’s just me 😂 |
|
4.37
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
AstroShed: It's an interesting question really. There is no question in my mind that we will very soon have software that can correct for all common optical aberrations that can be mathematically described. No optical system is perfect so I really see that as a positive as long as the software isn't creating detail that would never have been there in the first place. Now if you've invested in a very expensive OTA, or even worse, you are a producer of the product, you're probably not going to be very happy. On the other hand, if you own an average OTA, you'll be very supportive of the technology. It will level the playing field a lot, that's for sure. I do rather like the idea that the best images in the future will be the result of careful planning, tasteful composition and processing rather than just the result of how much you can afford. |
|
5.21
...
·
|
|---|
Tony Gondola:AstroShed: Yes, it all really depends on how far the AI will go in correcting for optical errors, will Autoguiding be needed at all, no bother correcting for tilt, backspacing will be no issue at all, close enough will do, does that not take some of the skills out of it all…I don’t know which way I lean really on this, I have a modest set up, probably about £7000 worth, and i spent a long time getting it all dialled in as best I can, then BX came a long and I felt I had wasted hours of adjusting and dialing in the tilt and backspacing issues I had, also any slight guiding errors, no problem BX will sort them…where does it end..🤷🏼♂️ But certain there will be many people loving the AI for much more budget set ups. what will manufactures do now, will they even bother producing top notch optics, or like WO just tell people to use BX |
|
4.37
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
AstroShed:Tony Gondola:AstroShed: It's getting easier all the time and I think that trend will continue. Look at smart telescopes, some of those images with external processing, what they lack is mostly due to choices made on the hardware design end, small apertures, no field de-rotation. I suspect that the real skill will shift out of the capture end and into the processing end. I'm with you, I love to tinker and tweak to get the best possible results, I think a lot of us here do. Photography used to involve glass plates and manual guiding for hours and hours in a freezing observatory. I would wager that the images we get today are better than those and push the limits far beyond anything thought possible 100 years ago. Maybe we need to just realize that it's a new frontier and see what all this new technology makes possible. |
|
7.22
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Well... My concern is not really about the AI-ness of the description but the fact that it's copy-pasted from somewhere else, with no apparent personal input or added value. FWIW, it could be verbatim from Wikipedia, same effect. Personally, every time I see such descriptions I just skip them, and I tend to comment less on those images as well. On the contrary, a personal note encourages interaction and discussion. |
 ...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Franco Grimoldi: I found this to be a fine subject for discussion, until that is, the first statement that referred to the IOTD. The question posed here was about the Description text, and not about the image whatsoever! The IOTD topic, regardless of nuances stated here have been beat to death on many other Forum threads, some as recent as last week. Referring to the IOTD in a Forum almost always devolves into negative territory, regardless of how well meaning the original question was. So I hope this thread can avoid that. I agee with what everyone here has stated regarding the topic at hand. Personally, I think it is a nice gesture from any poster of images to add something about the natural history of the object being posted. Even if it is a cut and paste from Wiki or other. Everyone should recognize that not everyone here on AstroBin are astrophysicists and capable of writing detailed descriptions. Also not everyone here cares, either. But for those interested, as I said, it is a nice gesture. Understand, that not everyone that sees your image is an astrophotographer, but may be seeking visual understanding of what an object is. This point covers a natural history type of Description. For the astrophotography details, again, I think it is a nice gesture. However, understand that not everyone cares about how the image is acquired or processed. Not everyone who will see it is an astrophotographer. Also, note that much of the information that can be stated in a Description is included already in other sections, if the poster chooses to do so. I think acquisition is better handled in AstroBin than processing details. However, as an astrophotographer, I often really do not care about the processing details so much. But sometimes I do! If a poster chooses not to share those details, I respect that. (Recently I saw a Forum thread that centered on the fact that one or more individuals failed to fully disclose how they achieved their result!) As for the natural history Descriptions, I feel that photographic details are also a nice gesture and require no essential disclosures. This is not science, where Method details would be required to even publish. This is art and some of those details may be an artist's secret formula, so to speak. I would add that it would be proper for those who include a natural history description of the subject reference the source of that information. I believe that AB does not have a strict rule that we do that (correct me if I am wrong), but it is a sensible thing to do. If one uses Wikipedia, then it is a good to recognize the service that Wikipedia provides. Also, to the savvy, it is well known that Wikipedia can suffer from errors on occasion, so if the description provided can lead a reader of your post to further research to confirm or deny the Wiki post, then that is how things should work. Even information published in reviewed scientific journals can have faults. But for multiple reasons, it is good to give references where sensible. |
7.94
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I agree, some sort of description of the image and possibly, as well, a personal note on the story of the acquisition is a nice addition to the image itself. I'm trying to do that most times now for my images and I always credit the source (generally Wikipedia, NASA.gov etc). I also post my images on my astro society's Facebook page, and it's here that I believe some descriptive text is important to include. This is where my images will be viewed by more people less involved or knowledgeable about astronomy than those here on Astrobin, and so I feel a responsibility to pass on a bit of relevant and interesting information rather than just present a pretty picture. It also forces *me* to learn something new tool. Frank |
8.77
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| There is no reference/mention to the word IOTD as far I can see. Am I suffering from selective blindness? |
|
4.51
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: Astroshed brought it up approximately in the middle of the thread as part of a digression from the actual topic. |
6.67
...
·
|
|---|
AstroShed: Didn't technically say "IOTD" but close enough. |
|
8.77
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Jan Erik Vallestad: So, it's only partial selective blindness as the wording "IOTD" was never spelled as such. Phew... |
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: *IOTD is not a word, but Astroshed spelled it out. Each and every post after that mentioned or alluded to that post. You as well as I know where that sort of mention will take any thread, especially when talk refers to image quality, fairness, etc. Certainly the originator made no mention to image quality of any sort. It was just about how we post information on the subject and where that info comes from. |
1.91
...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
I dont want to start an argument, but this hobby is changing a lot. I feel like complaining about a user using AI to improve their image is the equivalent to complaining that I used a digital camera and stacking vs film 20 years ago, or is like being upset that a user has used an ASIAIR vs cobbling together their own software/solution. Is the Rasa cheating because its so much faster? Is stacking cheating because I didnt have to take a single long sub? Is using SPCC in pixinsight unfair because I didnt do my own color calibration? Are filters unfair because I didnt have to drive to a secluded mnt top to get the image? I mean in theory we could be upset because someone used computerize mount vs manually tracking by hand, hahaha. I could go on and one, and each of these could be considered a "cheat" depending how you look at it. Example: If you look at the images people are getting from the seestar, combined with stacking, and blurxterminator, its clear there were some shortcuts implemented compared to what many of us consider "traditional imaging" I guess my point is that, instead of being upset that someone has produced an image that many love/like online, I choose to be happy more people are joining the hobby, I dont feel like my images are competitive and honestly most of them arent that good, but I dont take them or produce them to get the "online glory", I image because I enjoy it, and because I cant really see anything visually in my backyard. I enjoy others images because I like the stars, planets, space etc. I am less concerned how they got the image, (Except when I am trying to duplicate the image myself, which is actually why I love this website) I think an photographer letting AI create the image description is kind of lazy, but its not my image, and however he or she wants to share it is nunmybusiness Just my 2 cents. |
|
8.77
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Alan Brunelle: Well, I'm good in that regard as I never post anything other than what I know about the subject, if ever. But mostly never. |
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Clayton Ostler: To the point of your post, I agree with you. The concern I have is my own use of the word "fair" in my post before yours. I may have opened up a can of worms in doing so. A can I was hoping to seal. In a similar line of reasoning, is astrophotography the only art where makers of that art bicker over fairness? Do painters of canvas feel that painting on board is unfair? Realist feel that impressionist can't really paint? |
4.53
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Careful, now. How do you know it’s AI? I have a little bit of a following, so I write somewhat elaborate descriptions that (I hope) are casual and fun to read. Every paragraph is rooted in my own research of verified sites , like NASA, and scientists’ own views into new data from Hubble and Webb. I add an attribution if the info is highly specific or extremely new, but otherwise don’t if I’ve oversimplified (then just saying, “many scientists now think…”) because it’s a generalized essay, not a research paper. It’s supposed to be entertaining. I guess now someone is going to now accuse me of using a machine’s words merely because the prose has attitude and is grammatically correct (most of the time). |
|
5.21
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Jesus Christ, I only used the term “image of the day” as an example, I could have said APOD or any other examples, and it’s caused such an uproar for many people one here, that should really just get a life and think about what it really important, instead of harping on about four letters… I was not aware at all that saying “image of the day” was taboo on here, and would cause so many people to throw the dummy out of the pram….😂😂😂😂 |
