197 replies to this topic

[nicknacknock]

5 minutes is fine if you are in a dark site, but in a red zone it will take 20 minutes to get M101.  I think 20 minutes is a reasonable limit.

The 5 minute rule eliminates everyone in suburbs from posting dim galaxies.

 

Since this is not a posting forum, one can avoid posting the images. This limit is just for the posting of images, nothing else.

 

One can comment on their observations, their gear, their technique for stacking etc to their hearts' desire.

[Astrojedi]

On the contrary unlike the visual observing forum the DNA of this forum has always been about posting images as a way of sharing observations. Visual observers have no choice but to post descriptions.

I know for a fact that I am not doing AP when using longer integrations as are many others here. My images look nothing like AP and don’t belong in the AP forum.

If the mods have decided this is going to be the way forward and that they don’t want the community’s input then we definitely need a sub forum where longer integrations are allowed. Sorry but this makes little sense to me.

[nicknacknock]

We beg to differ - and that's fine!

 

The forum was about near real time observing. And that's why it existed separately. The images posted were short integrations, with a mix of discussions of equipment and techniques and observing reports. As time went by, we "escaped" the realm of short integrations and moved to longer integrations, shifting to "look at my picture". The reason this forum was created / exists is not for the images.Otherwise, we could roll it and post part in equipment, part in visual observing, part in imaging. 

[Astrojedi]

That’s fine. But we do need a place for this content. The stuff I many others post is definitely not AP. I do a lot of AP as well and my workflow and results are nothing like the images on this forum.

And while this content fits my and the community’s definition of EAA it does not seem to fit the mods definition of EAA. So maybe we create a sub forum?

Would appreciate if the Mod team would work with the community / users to solve this.

[S1mas]

Best way to solve this situation would be to move EAA to the sub forum of AP without any of those restrictions. In that case I like Ole Cuss old definition for EAA - "OAP" ( Observational AstroPhotography ) Why not, what is there to get wrong?

[cmooney91]

Would the beginner imaging, DSLR, or CCD/CMOS sub-forum tolerate an influx of refugee EAA "Imagers"?

 

We would repeatedly and openly disregard the conventional AP advice given and our EAA image output would greatly overwhelm and dilute the individual forum's focus topics. 

 

An AP'er might post 2 images per month, while an EAA'er would be posting a dozen per outing.

 

Also how would we find each other? would we have to check 3 different forums, and post to a specific one depending on what camera we captured with and what our experience level was. 

 

Imagine someone who does EAA with both DSLR and CMOS AstroCams, having to split his/her observing report over two different forums, and then having to repeatedly explain that he/she is not trying to do better AP in both threads. 

 

I think in our case the observational intent is a better criterion for organization than the means and methods used.  We are all here because we like to use cutting edge tech to augment our ability to see deeper, fainter, or to overcome severe light pollution, and to share these experiences, tips, and tricks with like minded individuals. 

 

I love EAA, it is an absolute game changer for me. I also like to see how other people do it and how their results compare to mine. Just like reading through the visual forums. 

 

Sure, there are forums for reflectors, refractors, and cats, and each one has some observing reports made with the particular type of scope, but the real meat and potato's happen in the actual observing forums, because that is were people go to share observations. 

Edited by cmooney91, 21 November 2019 - 08:52 PM.

[Barkingsteve]

There are a few members here who have been in this little corner of the forum for a long time and who i look up to voicing concerns on rules imposed by the mod team without even discussing the way forward. It makes me a little sad when they cannot even communicate with the backbone of the 'EAA' community on a way forward, but it is what it is.

 

My thoughts, for what it is worth, is that i have always seen 'EAA' as short stacked images viewed on the fly rather than long exposure astrophotography. While i think the 5 minute rule is a bit harsh perhaps there should be a sub exposure length limit to co-inside with a longer integration time. For example, pulling numbers out my proverbial, say 30 second sub limit maximum total 15 minutes, no post processing,etc.

 

Whatever the outcome, as long as there is still a forum where i can see discussions and images of what i understand as 'EAA' then i still have a place to come.

[elpajare]

A bit of realism please, has not anyone noticed that photographs are hardly published in this Forum? Let no one think that those of us who practice EAA do not keep our photographs, we keep them and we are very proud of them but we cannot show our work in CN.

 

So difficult is it to create a subforum or whatever we can publish our work without disturbing anyone?

[DSO_Viewer]

Perspective from a novice in the hobby (just late night thoughts really

 

When I first got into this hobby and stumbled on this area of CN after a couple weeks of reading up on AP. It was casual, fun, live, less restrictive, multi-functional, and way cheaper. I knew immediately this is where I wanted to learn and learn i did, from most of the people replying to this thread actually.  

 

 

What IF "EAA" was 5 min , and "OAP" was up to say 20 or 25 min.  I figure 30 puts you in AP.  Most of what I've seen posted here are between 5 and 15 min integration times.

 

I bring up OAP, Observational AstroPhotograpghy, because maybe that term makes more sense now for the gray areas between what was video astronomy and what now IMO is basically AP lite( i mean that in a good way too)

 

That probably sounds like it would be 2 different sub forums, maybe it could be or even should be?  Maybe It should be 2 subs under the big AstroPhotography sub so that it brings more attention to both styles of "assisted astronomy".   Shoot, why not Astro Phonograpghy too.  Its all fun and fast to me. 

 

Maybe it should be a vote or a poll first.

 

Just some thoughts from a rookie who really enjoys any astronomy i can get in 5 - 25 minutes

I think the term "video astronomy" is dead now since no one here uses a true video camera for EAA. I totally agree with the moderators new rules but would like to add a 30 second limit sub exposure for a total of 5 minute maximum for true EAA.

 

Steve

Edited by DSO_Viewer, 21 November 2019 - 12:44 PM.

[nic35]

I was intrigued by the comment that what is posted in this forum is trending to AP, since my gut sense is that in this forum there is far, far less emphasis on the quality of the picture, and much more about  "gee,  see what I saw". And because of these two different objectives, the general content of the two forums (bad Latin, I know), is likely to be much different, even though we might use very much the same gear.

 

So I compared the integration times (and visual images) of the October challenges in the Beginning and Intermediate imaging  forum to those of the October challenge in this forum.  I take these postings to be surrogates for the objectives of the respective user communities, and that they represent the "best" of those objectives.

 

The results are instructive. The median integration time in the Beginning and Intermediate Forum was 240 minutes, while that of the EAA forum was 7.25 minutes.  The chart below shows the range in integration times of the 33 B&I images and the 23 of the EAA forum.  There is almost no overlap - the longest EAA image was taken in a red zone with a relatively small aperture instrument.  Visual inspection shows, as can be expected, a marked difference in image quality.

 

This suggests that the equipment is used in different ways in each of the forums.  In the BII forum , I suspect low gain, long integration, multiple channels on a guided equatorial mount is the standard.  Ask about an Alt-Az mount, and you'll be told "not possible".

 

In EAA, unguided, alt-az photos are common - maybe even the norm. 

 

Whatever we do in this forum it is certainly not AP as practiced in the other forums, and mixing the two together invites confusion.

 

If you feel compelled to need a limit, I'd vote for a 20 minute limit - it's "near real time" enough for most of us who actually use this forum, and makes the forum more user friendly - no need to post an image elsewhere and provide links.

 

john

 

Edited by nic35, 21 November 2019 - 12:34 PM.

[elpajare]

A small addition to nic35's comment which I consider very successful, by the way

 

In the astrophoto forum, the image processing (of course!) Is allowed; however, in the EAA, it is not allowed because it is considered an "improved visual only" forum.

 

Another dilemma to be solved by the moderators and administrators if they decide to put some order in all this!

Edited by elpajare, 21 November 2019 - 12:51 PM.

[dr.who]

Thanks. There are many things you have said that I agree with. This definitely should not be AP. But limiting exposure time is arbitrary and problematic.
 
I use longer exposure time to go deeper and see fainter stuff and not to do AP. Folks in the visual observing forum use larger and larger scopes to go deeper which is not an option for me.
 
Limiting total exposure time for EAA observers to me is akin to telling the visual observers that you cannot use scopes larger than say 16” (a completely arbitrary limit). Observations with that 48” scope are not allowed.
 
I hope you understand the point I am making. At least consider a 10 or 15 min limit. If you go on the AP forum it is hard to find an image which has less than 2-3 hours of exposure. So 10-15 mins still keeps you well away from AP.

I and all of us in the Mod/Admin ranks understand and hear what you are saying. However based on your response you do not hear or understand what we are saying. We are not limiting the amount of time you can stack and image. Or what you can do to it in terms of processing. We are doing the best we can to address a problem in this forum. Is the 5 minute number arbitrary? To a certain extent it is. But it is the one we discussed and decided was the best compromise.

That problem being people are now posting images that are not meant to assist with others observing an object nor are they meant to address a technical challenge beyond good polar alignment and image acquisition at a level that is firmly in the realm of AP and not EAA. The majority of EAA users are not going to sit in front of a monitor for 20 minutes while an image stacks. There is a vocal minority here who will object to that statement but it is the reality.

Nor does limiting an exposure length being posted here translate to saying no scopes over 16”. Those arguments are a canard.

And the whole EAA from light pollution means that 5 minutes is too short is absolute rubbish. I live in Los Angeles. I am not at the city center but I am in a white zone with quite a bit of local light from sports fields etc. When I started with EAA using a Malincam and the software (I can’t remember the name of) that he recommended I could do 60 second images and stack 4 of them. They provided views and details on objects that left what I could see visually using my Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball in the dust. So I am very aware of what can be had in a 5 minute time frame. In addition NV significantly enhances in real time what can be seen. Are images better from dark skies? Yes. But this is not a AP forum. It is an observing forum.

In addition 0-15 minutes does not keep it out of the AP realm. Actually over about the 60 seconds would but we didn’t want to be that draconian.

If you are shooting 15-30 minute stacks of images to get “faint details” you are doing AP by default. I engage in EAA and AP. I am well aware of the differences. So do several of the Admin’s and Mod’s.

You might as well take that next step and just post process your image because at 15 minutes+ you are firmly in the AP realm. If your post processing techniques are not at the same skill level, or your equipment isn’t as expensive as some of the people in the AP forums then you have the option of increasing your skill, buying more expensive equipment, or enhancing your experience levels and tuning your equipment so that you can get images that do compete with them. As an example of someone who uses very modest equipment (until very recently) to do very good work, take a look at John Rista’s work. He used a Chinese mount until very recently and a DSLR lens.

What we are not going to allow is for the posting of what amounts to AP images in a Observational forum. If the majority of the members who participate here want longer integration times over that 5 minute mark then please inform us. We will lock the EAA forum and you will all have to move to the AP forums with a EAA tag on your images and post there. Alternately we are happy to add a EAA tag over in the AP forums so you can list your images as such to differentiate them from what you all are calling AP images.

So please move past this or request the EAA forum be locked.

[dr.who]

AP forums do not allow for observing reports. Equipment forums like refractors etc allow for some observing reports but only in the context of how it relates to the performance of the equipment being referenced. This forum is a hybrid of observing reports and equipment discussions with the caveat that images of the work product are allowed to support either or both.

There is no need to show that someone can go for 15+ minutes on an exposure with equipment by posting multiple images doing so. It is so stipulated that if you can do 5 minutes you can do an hour plus.

If you want to post long exposure images do it in an AP forum and leave off the observing report. If your exposure doesn’t compete with a 240 minute exposure, then accept that as the way it is or improve your technique and image for that duration. Posting a long exposure image here isn’t about observing. As I said the majority of people doing EAA do not sit in front of a computer screen for 20 minutes waiting for an image to stack. If you are someone that does then I respect your patience and perseverance but understand you are not in the majority.

Starting another forum is not going to happen. There isn’t enough demand for it, it further dilutes, silo’s, and fractures the site into over specialization. And the required support of that forum from the standpoint of moderator’s assigned and administrator oversight is not workable. The death of this site will be overspecialization. We have observing forums. We have equipment forums. We have imaging forums. This is really the only hybrid observing, equipment, and to a much lesser extent imaging forum in that images support the observing and equipment components.

As I said this is primarily a hybrid equipment and observing forum. The rules in place are designed to facilitate that hybrid nature. It is a compromise. No one is happy with a compromise. But the alternative, to be perfectly clear, is the elimination of the forum, moving the pictures to an AP forum where the people there will have to accept that less than professional high end images are going to be posted and the EAA people will not be allowed to put observing reports. And all observing reports will have to go to a observational forum but no pictures are allowed to be posted.

So please pick what you want to do.

[elpajare]

Mr. Administrator:

 

I welcome you to clarify things this way.

 

1.- Recognize that using the EAA technique and processing images is a form of Astrophotography

2.- It is advisable to buy more expensive equipment and enter the Astrophoto field if we want to improve our results as astrophotography

3.- They will not allow to post processed photographs taken with the EAA technique in the EAA forum

4.- Offer to create an EAA tag in the astrophotography forum

 

Well, do it now, please!

[OleCuss]

I'd just point out that while I think a whole lot of us are frequently doing more than 5 minutes on a target for OAP, being limited to posting a 5 minute integration here may not be ideal but really doesn't keep you from sharing your 15-30+ minute image.

 

I'm pretty sure you can put the image on AstroBin or something similar and then just post the link to whatever AP image you might want.  The flow may not be as nice as if the image is embedded in your post but it shouldn't be all that big a deal?

[dr.who]

Mr. Administrator:
 
I welcome you to clarify things this way.
 
1.- Recognize that using the EAA technique and processing images is a form of Astrophotography
2.- It is advisable to buy more expensive equipment and enter the Astrophoto field if we want to improve our results as astrophotography
3.- They will not allow to post processed photographs taken with the EAA technique in the EAA forum
4.- Offer to create an EAA tag in the astrophotography forum
 
Well, do it now, please!

No.
No. See what I said about modest equipment above.
Yes.
We will discuss such a creation. Until then post your long exposure images there but do not include a observing report.

In summation you are voting for the closure of the EAA forum. So noted. Thank you for your input.

[dr.who]

I'd just point out that while I think a whole lot of us are frequently doing more than 5 minutes on a target for OAP, being limited to posting a 5 minute integration here may not be ideal but really doesn't keep you from sharing your 15-30+ minute image.
 
I'm pretty sure you can put the image on AstroBin or something similar and then just post the link to whatever AP image you might want.  The flow may not be as nice as if the image is embedded in your post but it shouldn't be all that big a deal?

You certainly can do that. However without the technical card required by the rules the post will get removed. And you will run afoul of the ToS. Repeated incidents will ultimately get you suspended and ultimately banned from the site.

Fudging about the technical card will run afoul of the same since none of us here are idiots and we can pretty much tell what is what.

[elpajare]

Mr. Administrator:

 

1.- Points 1 and 2 (are your exactly words translated with Google) have been proclaimed by you in this Thread. Are you retracting?

2.- Do not get me wrong, please, I am not in favor of closing this EAA forum, I am simply looking for an alternative within CN to be able to publish my EAA works without disturbing anyone.

Edited by elpajare, 21 November 2019 - 01:17 PM.

[nicknacknock]

I am curious, what’s the hangup over creating a Flickr account, keep your images there and hyperlink to CN? It’s free, helps keep your photos organized and easily accessible and allows you to show if you so wish, more integration time. The limit of 5 minutes was discussed and implemented to keep focus on the observational aspect of EAA and applies only to images uploaded directly to a post.

 

I am really curious why the big fuss over something so simple? Is the observational aspect of EAA so far gone? Should the mission of this forum change because a minority wishes to run massive integrations and still call it observing?  Then post those images here just saying “yah, I saw this last night” and call it an observing report?

 

And all because you don’t wanna make a free account with whatever free online image hosting service and just hyperlink your images? Because in the end, it comes down to that. You DO have the option of showing your work if you so wish, just not by directly posting the images - do so via a hyperlink.

[nicknacknock]

Mr. Administrator:

 

1.- Points 1 and 2 (are your exactly words translated with Google) have been proclaimed by you in this Thread. Are you retracting?

2.- Do not get me wrong, please, I am not in favor of closing this EAA forum, I am simply looking for an alternative within CN to be able to publish my EAA works without disturbing anyone.

Taken directly from your website:

 

”This is NOT Astrophotography, all the photographs have been taken from the patio of my house with maximum exposures of 25 seconds and integration periods not exceeding 4 minutes, without additional guidance, this technique is known as Videoastronomy. Thanks to all who follow me and to those who see and comment on my photographs”.

 

You do short integrations within the 5 minute limit, so pardon me for asking, why do the rules cause  so much discomfort?

[elpajare]

Mr.  Nicknacknock:

 

I find your arguments very reasonable

Let me insist that many users would like to see our work published here, in CN, not in Astrobin.

If those who do Astrophotography can, why not we who do EAA.

If it cannot be in the EAA Forum, let's do it in the Astrophotography forum with an EAA tag.

Maybe it is impossible? It is very difficult?

The effort would be worthwhile to continue keeping many users interested in visiting it regularly

[elpajare]

Taken directly from your website:

 

”This is NOT Astrophotography, all the photographs have been taken from the patio of my house with maximum exposures of 25 seconds and integration periods not exceeding 4 minutes, without additional guidance, this technique is known as Videoastronomy. Thanks to all who follow me and to those who see and comment on my photographs”.

 

You do short integrations within the 5 minute limit, so pardon me for asking, why do the rules cause  so much discomfort?

Don't worry, please, I've already changed this. You are right.

I have put that it is EAA and that a form of Astrophotography.

 

I am NOT against the EAA forum rules, don't get me wrong, please. I am only asking you to be able to publish this type of photographs here, in CN, the site that you consider more appropriate respecting the different way of taking photographs of EAA and Astrophotography

Edited by elpajare, 21 November 2019 - 01:31 PM.

[OleCuss]

I am curious, what’s the hangup over creating a Flickr account, keep your images there and hyperlink to CN? It’s free, helps keep your photos organized and easily accessible and allows you to show if you so wish, more integration time. The limit of 5 minutes was discussed and implemented to keep focus on the observational aspect of EAA and applies only to images uploaded directly to a post.

 

I am really curious why the big fuss over something so simple? Is the observational aspect of EAA so far gone? Should the mission of this forum change because a minority wishes to run massive integrations and still call it observing?  Then post those images here just saying “yah, I saw this last night” and call it an observing report?

 

And all because you don’t wanna make a free account with whatever free online image hosting service and just hyperlink your images? Because in the end, it comes down to that. You DO have the option of showing your work if you so wish, just not by directly posting the images - do so via a hyperlink.

That's pretty much was what I was suggesting.

 

But a few posts previously a response to what I posted suggest that things are much more restrictive than I thought.

 

It rather looks like if I were to do a 6 minute integration, post it on AstroBin with the technical details listed there that I might also have to post the technical card to this sub-forum and if the technical card showed an integration time of over 5 minutes that this would be frowned upon at the least.

 

Understand, I can live with that as I've no plans to post any images pretty much anywhere in the near future.  This is not a complaint.

 

The rules did not say that you could not refer to longer integrations or that you could not post a technical card for an image with an integration time of longer than 5 minutes.

 

I'm also not sure that it says you have to post a technical card for an image which is not posted here but is merely linked.

 

So my assumption was that under the current rules you could use a service such as AstroBin or Flickr and simply do a link to the actual image.  This may not be the intent of the administrators and moderators and if so I'd recommend making it clear in the new rules that this is inconsistent with the intent of this sub-forum.

 

And again, please don't take this as a complaint because while I'd probably choose differently if I were running the show, my choices might not be any more popular or better for the forum in general.

 

I'd just advocate for a little more clarity in the rules because right now I'm just a little confused.  My confusion won't be a problem but for those who actually will post links it might be a significant issue?

[nicknacknock]

Mr.  Nicknacknock:

 

I find your arguments very reasonable

Let me insist that many users would like to see our work published here, in CN, not in Astrobin.

If those who do Astrophotography can, why not we who do EAA.

If it cannot be in the EAA Forum, let's do it in the Astrophotography forum with an EAA tag.

Maybe it is impossible? It is very difficult?

The effort would be worthwhile to continue keeping many users interested in visiting it regularly

I respect your right to integrate for as long as you like. I truly do. I have done long integrations myself, but I cannot claim to have been observing the whole time and noting the differences as the integration progressed and whatever. I do that (observing all the way) when I do my usual 15s @ 320 gain for 4-5 minutes.

 

But your work, if you integrate for a long time does not represent the observational aspect and equipment discussion, that is the reason and the core of the existence of the EAA forum. It is simply not real / near real time observing.... 

[Astrojedi]

I and all of us in the Mod/Admin ranks understand and hear what you are saying. However based on your response you do not hear or understand what we are saying. We are not limiting the amount of time you can stack and image. Or what you can do to it in terms of processing. We are doing the best we can to address a problem in this forum. Is the 5 minute number arbitrary? To a certain extent it is. But it is the one we discussed and decided was the best compromise.

That problem being people are now posting images that are not meant to assist with others observing an object nor are they meant to address a technical challenge beyond good polar alignment and image acquisition at a level that is firmly in the realm of AP and not EAA. The majority of EAA users are not going to sit in front of a monitor for 20 minutes while an image stacks. There is a vocal minority here who will object to that statement but it is the reality.

Nor does limiting an exposure length being posted here translate to saying no scopes over 16”. Those arguments are a canard.

And the whole EAA from light pollution means that 5 minutes is too short is absolute rubbish. I live in Los Angeles. I am not at the city center but I am in a white zone with quite a bit of local light from sports fields etc. When I started with EAA using a Malincam and the software (I can’t remember the name of) that he recommended I could do 60 second images and stack 4 of them. They provided views and details on objects that left what I could see visually using my Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball in the dust. So I am very aware of what can be had in a 5 minute time frame. In addition NV significantly enhances in real time what can be seen. Are images better from dark skies? Yes. But this is not a AP forum. It is an observing forum.

In addition 0-15 minutes does not keep it out of the AP realm. Actually over about the 60 seconds would but we didn’t want to be that draconian.

If you are shooting 15-30 minute stacks of images to get “faint details” you are doing AP by default. I engage in EAA and AP. I am well aware of the differences. So do several of the Admin’s and Mod’s.

You might as well take that next step and just post process your image because at 15 minutes+ you are firmly in the AP realm. If your post processing techniques are not at the same skill level, or your equipment isn’t as expensive as some of the people in the AP forums then you have the option of increasing your skill, buying more expensive equipment, or enhancing your experience levels and tuning your equipment so that you can get images that do compete with them. As an example of someone who uses very modest equipment (until very recently) to do very good work, take a look at John Rista’s work. He used a Chinese mount until very recently and a DSLR lens.

What we are not going to allow is for the posting of what amounts to AP images in a Observational forum. If the majority of the members who participate here want longer integration times over that 5 minute mark then please inform us. We will lock the EAA forum and you will all have to move to the AP forums with a EAA tag on your images and post there. Alternately we are happy to add a EAA tag over in the AP forums so you can list your images as such to differentiate them from what you all are calling AP images.

So please move past this or request the EAA forum be locked.

 

I was hoping to have a constructive discussion with the moderator team. Threatening to shut down the forum seems like a very aggressive response. Why do folks who don't do EAA with modern cameras want to impose their antiquated definition of EAA on those who actually do.

 

Anyways as I suggested before even a 10-15min limit would be much more acceptable. If the moderator team is not willing to show any flexibility then I guess there is no point discussing this.

 

"Cloudy Nights - Your astronomical community" - does not feel like it.

Edited by Astrojedi, 21 November 2019 - 02:26 PM.