Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

The Case of NGC 891 what's happened

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 a.falesiedi72

a.falesiedi72

    Explorer 1

  • *----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2014
  • Loc: Italy

Posted 20 January 2017 - 05:50 AM

Hello everyone.

In relation to recent events, following which I believe is essential to a due reply, as I also mentioned earlier in the immediacy of what happened  I proceeded to do so to achieve a permanent page on my site http://www.alessandr...whats-happened/ , where, in addition to data and facts, which I hope will be useful to understand what happened, will be available the content that will I hope, at least partially transform the situation from a mere "yellow astronomical o astronomical mistery" during enrichment or otherwise sharing .

Thank you all for your attention.



#2 PenumbraX

PenumbraX

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012
  • Loc: Lynnwood, WA

Posted 20 January 2017 - 03:42 PM

Since this is your response to the plagiarism of Adam Blocks’ NGC 891 image I’ve tried reading through your response (I know English isn’t your native language) and find it inadequate since it only provides theory and not much relevant raw data to support your claim that you did not plagiarize Adam’s image.  What you present is just theory and supposed processing tricks, while not addressing the issues that were spoken about on Facebook regarding the optical signature from Adam’s image.  The only claim that I can understand was that it was a “mistake” and trying to prove that a C11 with an SX H694 can produce the same level of detail as the 0.8M scope at Mt. Lemmon is a stretch of the imagination.  Also, you claim that the star spiking software can replicate the “exact same” phenomenon but you don’t provide proof of how that can be done.

 

For those that haven’t been following this here’s some relevant links:
https://apod.nasa.go...d/ap170112.html

 

The correct image was from Adam Block and the APOD editors corrected the post.  More about how it was found can be seen in the Facebook posts here:

 

https://m.facebook.c...183112011724258

 

See also the few comments in the APOD forum:

 

http://asterisk.apod...php?f=9&t=36746
Adam Block comment in post #3.

 

Same image here on CN while showing the capabilities of the Avalon M3 recently:

http://www.cloudynig...its-all-in-one/

 

The resulting Italian astro-community fallout from this can be seen on their forums:

http://forum.astrofi...php?f=5&t=98000

 

A blink image from the one of the posters on the Italian forums showing the two images (Adam Blocks and the other) annotated with arrows pointing out the stars:

http://www.caelumobs...ngc891_comp.gif

 

If it was truly a mistake in "good faith", and you value your reputation as an astrophotographer then you need to show everything, start to finish of how this happened and where the mistake occurred, all raw data must be included to be examined by the community.  This type of thing has happened before (just ask Christopher Go when his images were plagiarized in an APOD) so the burden of proof needs to come from you.


  • Rankinstudio and Ron359 like this

#3 Rankinstudio

Rankinstudio

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Southern UT

Posted 20 January 2017 - 06:11 PM

So painfully obvious that you layered Adam's image data into your shot. Just own it and move on.

#4 ChrisLX200

ChrisLX200

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2015
  • Loc: Macclesfield, UK

Posted 20 January 2017 - 06:39 PM

So painfully obvious that you layered Adam's image data into your shot. Just own it and move on.

 

How do you move on from that ?

 

ChrisH



#5 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 6876
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 20 January 2017 - 09:16 PM

Well, that gif picture defines the issue,  there is no doubt that the data is the same. :confused:

Blueman 


  • Rankinstudio likes this

#6 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 20 January 2017 - 11:03 PM

Ugh.  Its a shame because the data in the M3 thread looks pretty good, no reason to add Adam Block's data to that.  We are seeing limited so the 80cm would only outperform the 28cm in ideal seeing conditions. That NGC891 the some guy http://www.cloudynig...d-1s-subs-lrgb/ took with 3000+ 1 second exposures with a dob is certainly comparable.

 

Beyond not giving credit which is egregious, how is this different than a good 1/3rd or 1/4th of the Astrobin IOTD that clearly layer in data from surveys or other professional data? That 1/3rd to 1/4th number might even be higher because Astrobin makes no attempt to force IOTD contenders to even fill out the information about how the data was collected.

 

Edit:  If you look at the comparison gif I'm surprised by how poor his blend job was on his part. If you look at post 4 in the M3 thread the diffraction is clearly different than the final image.


Edited by akulapanam, 20 January 2017 - 11:38 PM.


#7 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 6876
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 21 January 2017 - 02:26 AM

Besides it being unethical, it is illegal to take copyrighted material and use it for your own purposes. I would not like it if it were my data used either. But, I have no real proof that this was done, but it is certainly apparent to me that the data in question was the same. It is more or less impossible to completely duplicate data, using different equipment, there will always be differences.

Blueman



#8 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 21 January 2017 - 02:43 AM

Besides it being unethical, it is illegal to take copyrighted material and use it for your own purposes. I would not like it if it were my data used either. But, I have no real proof that this was done, but it is certainly apparent to me that the data in question was the same. It is more or less impossible to completely duplicate data, using different equipment, there will always be differences.

Blueman

Absolutely.  I guess my point was more people are acting a little bit hypocritical to be shocked over this and then go vote up similar images on astrobin.



#9 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 6876
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 21 January 2017 - 03:46 PM

 

Besides it being unethical, it is illegal to take copyrighted material and use it for your own purposes. I would not like it if it were my data used either. But, I have no real proof that this was done, but it is certainly apparent to me that the data in question was the same. It is more or less impossible to completely duplicate data, using different equipment, there will always be differences.

Blueman

Absolutely.  I guess my point was more people are acting a little bit hypocritical to be shocked over this and then go vote up similar images on astrobin.

 

If this is true, they you are right. I don't look at a lot of images on Astobin, so I am not too familiar with what is shown there. If this is common practice, then maybe I haven't missed much. :undecided:

Blueman



#10 Alex McConahay

Alex McConahay

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4783
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Moreno Valley, CA

Posted 21 January 2017 - 03:59 PM

>>>>>I guess my point was more people are acting a little bit hypocritical to be shocked over this and then go vote up similar images on astrobin.

 

I see nothing wrong with using either Public Domain, or somebody else's raw data with permission,  and in either case with acknowledgement. And if that is the kind of stuff you are talking about, then, it should be fine. I do have a problem with somebody saying "lookie what I did" when they only did part of it. 

 

At AIC a couple of years back, Rob Gendler did a presentation about how to do just that. And it seemed perfectly legit to me. (Again as long as with permission, in public domain, and acknowledged and recognized.)

 

What I cannot quite figure out from Allessandro's webpage is: Is he admitting he used Adam Block's work, but forgot to take it out of the stack before finishing? Or is he saying he did not use Block's work? Is he still insisting that what we see came out of his camera?

 

Alex


  • Rankinstudio likes this

#11 ManuelJ

ManuelJ

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1087
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Madrid, Spain

Posted 21 January 2017 - 06:52 PM

Nice try... But... Do you even have a telescope?.

#12 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 21 January 2017 - 07:08 PM

 

 

Besides it being unethical, it is illegal to take copyrighted material and use it for your own purposes. I would not like it if it were my data used either. But, I have no real proof that this was done, but it is certainly apparent to me that the data in question was the same. It is more or less impossible to completely duplicate data, using different equipment, there will always be differences.

Blueman

Absolutely.  I guess my point was more people are acting a little bit hypocritical to be shocked over this and then go vote up similar images on astrobin.

 

If this is true, they you are right. I don't look at a lot of images on Astobin, so I am not too familiar with what is shown there. If this is common practice, then maybe I haven't missed much. :undecided:

Blueman

 

Its a fantastic place for storing images and looking at images with equipment setups BUT the IOTD system is a mess tending to award IOTD to only a select group of the same users and without any requirements to encourage fair play. 

 

>>>>>I guess my point was more people are acting a little bit hypocritical to be shocked over this and then go vote up similar images on astrobin.

 

I see nothing wrong with using either Public Domain, or somebody else's raw data with permission,  and in either case with acknowledgement. And if that is the kind of stuff you are talking about, then, it should be fine. I do have a problem with somebody saying "lookie what I did" when they only did part of it. 

 

At AIC a couple of years back, Rob Gendler did a presentation about how to do just that. And it seemed perfectly legit to me. (Again as long as with permission, in public domain, and acknowledged and recognized.)

 

What I cannot quite figure out from Allessandro's webpage is: Is he admitting he used Adam Block's work, but forgot to take it out of the stack before finishing? Or is he saying he did not use Block's work? Is he still insisting that what we see came out of his camera?

 

Alex

No idea I was baffled as well.  To your point "lookie what I did" when they only did part is the big issue for me but it also seems like its pretty common practice for IOTD winners.  In fact I think the ASC guy brought it up on this site at some point.  That is why I think all IOTD contests, on astrobin, or elsewhere should make full disclosure of equipment used, data blended a minimum requirement.  The disclosure wouldn't prevent an issue like this but it would make it a lot harder to claim oops after the fact.



#13 jhayes_tucson

jhayes_tucson

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Bend, OR

Posted 21 January 2017 - 09:14 PM

Its a fantastic place for storing images and looking at images with equipment setups BUT the IOTD system is a mess tending to award IOTD to only a select group of the same users and without any requirements to encourage fair play. 

 

 

You seem unaware that AB has a whole new way of picking the IOTD that relies on multi-level judging by independent judges.  The images are presented to the judges without any names; although if they really want to look they can find out who shot what.  It is a completely different system than the old one that basically worked off of "likes."

 

John


  • akulapanam likes this

#14 Alex McConahay

Alex McConahay

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4783
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Moreno Valley, CA

Posted 21 January 2017 - 09:20 PM

To ManuelJ:

 

>>>>>Nice try... But... Do you even have a telescope?.

 

That question came after my post. If you are asking me, I suppose I should say that I have a very nice refractor that takes good pictures (not great, but I think that is my fault), and an eight inch dob that I made myself. My dob is red and very pretty. I have other scopes, too.

 

Alex



#15 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 21 January 2017 - 10:15 PM

 

Its a fantastic place for storing images and looking at images with equipment setups BUT the IOTD system is a mess tending to award IOTD to only a select group of the same users and without any requirements to encourage fair play. 

 

 

You seem unaware that AB has a whole new way of picking the IOTD that relies on multi-level judging by independent judges.  The images are presented to the judges without any names; although if they really want to look they can find out who shot what.  It is a completely different system than the old one that basically worked off of "likes."

 

John

 

That's great news!  I thought they went likes -> site owners/owners friends -> back to likes...  I don't normally use their forum but I participated in a discussion a couple weeks ago on how old images were getting IOTD with the usual suspects so that's why I thought likes or owners friends was still the system. 



#16 josh smith

josh smith

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5232
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Loc: North Port, Florida

Posted 21 January 2017 - 11:08 PM


Its a fantastic place for storing images and looking at images with equipment setups BUT the IOTD system is a mess tending to award IOTD to only a select group of the same users and without any requirements to encourage fair play.


You seem unaware that AB has a whole new way of picking the IOTD that relies on multi-level judging by independent judges. The images are presented to the judges without any names; although if they really want to look they can find out who shot what. It is a completely different system than the old one that basically worked off of "likes."

John
A little off topic, but not really true. Almost the opposite. The polls are created for IOTD by people picking labeled images and then upvoting them. There's definitely no blind judging involved with the new system. It is very clear who has taken which images in the selection process now.

The final judges may get a blind pool, but it's just generated from the top picks which are published for everyone to see.

Edited by josh smith, 21 January 2017 - 11:08 PM.


#17 ManuelJ

ManuelJ

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1087
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Madrid, Spain

Posted 22 January 2017 - 09:34 AM

To ManuelJ:

>>>>>Nice try... But... Do you even have a telescope?.

That question came after my post. If you are asking me, I suppose I should say that I have a very nice refractor that takes good pictures (not great, but I think that is my fault), and an eight inch dob that I made myself. My dob is red and very pretty. I have other scopes, too.

Alex


No, that was for the thread creator. Mr. Falsetti.

#18 andysea

andysea

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2604
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 22 January 2017 - 06:51 PM

Ugh I had missed all this, very unfortunate indeed.



#19 rob77

rob77

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 769
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Cuneo (Italy) / Belo Horizonte (Brazil)

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:10 AM

@akulapanam

 

Using pro data, as I often do together with Gendler, declaring all the sources has nothing to do with layering other images in the original one without asking any permission.



#20 buras

buras

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Lithuania, Kaunas

Posted 23 January 2017 - 10:38 AM

I'm just wondering here, do you, Alessandro, think that everyone here is completely stupid and can't differentiate between "image similarly processed" vs "image blended with"? This behaviour is just complete social suicide on astro related matters. Completely unacceptable and disrespectful.


  • Rankinstudio, rob77 and Jon Rista like this

#21 Ladyhawke

Ladyhawke

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2014

Posted 23 January 2017 - 10:45 AM

His filter wheel has only 5 positions. I wonder if he switches back and forth between narrow and broadband.  :applause:



#22 schmeah

schmeah

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 23 January 2017 - 08:51 PM

Just seeing this. Say it aint so Alessandro. The inspiration behind my M Uno purchase. And such great legitimate images and true APODs before this ... 



#23 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 23 January 2017 - 11:23 PM

@akulapanam

 

Using pro data, as I often do together with Gendler, declaring all the sources has nothing to do with layering other images in the original one without asking any permission.

No disagreement my point is that this happens from time to time and that Astrobin can tighten up its policies to help prevent this behavior.  At the very least Astrobin needs to require full details of the acquisition be posted in order to qualify for IOTD. 

 

That said personally I also believe that professional and possibly even rental data should be excluded from IOTD or IOTD be separated into two contests. Any one can download and process professional data and enhance their images as a result.  Enhancing an image in this manner seems like cheating compared to those of us who go out in freezing weather to image and struggle with our own equipment or push the boundaries of amateur imaging like the aforementioned dob guy. 

 

Pro data presents a very fine murky line.  IF this guy was a citizen of Arizona (he's not) and IF Arizona's FOIA covers the Mt Lemmon Sky Center (owned by UofA which is a public state university) and IF he had acquired the raw data and merged that data with his he would still be very unethical to not give credit but not in breach of copyright.  My point here is that Adam Block is well known so we feel sympathy but we should have the same reaction when it happens to a lessor known scientist or imagers data. 

 

 

Just seeing this. Say it aint so Alessandro. The inspiration behind my M Uno purchase. And such great legitimate images and true APODs before this ... 

I hope legitimate but I have definitely been looking at his images with a finer tooth comb.



#24 tjugo

tjugo

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1257
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2007

Posted 24 January 2017 - 03:54 AM

WOW! I am really upset with Alessandro! A couple of years he won the second prize (700 euro?) of an international photography contest (La Palma 2015) in which I participated, he won with an image that doesn't match the capture description, there is no way that with 211 min of Ha he could record these details:

 

http://www.alessandr...-sky-en/m-51-2/

 

Last year we captured 25h of Ha of the same object, with a similar aperture instrument and we didn't go as deep as his image.

 

Last year he participated in the same contest (La Palma 2016) with the fraudulent NGC 891 and he won second prize (700 euro):

 

http://www.eldiario...._593190894.html

 

Adam Block participated as well in the same contest but with another image and he only got a mention, no prize. Unbelievable! 

 

Clear skies!

 

Jose


  • Rankinstudio, Ron359 and Jon Rista like this

#25 rob77

rob77

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 769
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Cuneo (Italy) / Belo Horizonte (Brazil)

Posted 24 January 2017 - 06:08 AM

 

Enhancing an image in this manner seems like cheating compared to those of us who go out in freezing weather to image and struggle with our own equipment or push the boundaries of amateur imaging like the aforementioned dob guy.

 

Well, in my case - which is more or less the same as Robert's - producing a composite is a matter of weeks, sometimes months, stitching together hundreds (in some cases thousands) of mosaic pieces.

Ok, we do it at home and not outside in the cold but anyway I can ensure you that it is a tough task.

 

For what concerns the IOTD, I don't really care too much about it and you should do the same, IMHO.

We should stop focusing too much on competition and just do what we like most.

 

Following your approach, IOTD should be also divided into SQM and equipment, leading to never ending discussions.

Guys that record data under a very polluted sky, with a cheap equipment and a DSLR, wouldn't never reach the quality of bigger/more expensive scopes under good skies and with high performing CCDs.

 

Let's take this hobby easy. This is just my 2 cents.

 

Cheers


Edited by rob77, 24 January 2017 - 06:09 AM.

  • Ricky and rjbokleman like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics