APOD: Sun Spot Hill (2021 Sep 21)

[varadinagypal]

Well, contacted the two senior editors. We'll see.

[johnnydeep]

Is there a more official way to report fakes?

Well, someone at APOD chose this picture and wrote the text, so contacting them might get a response. There are two possibilities:

Authors & editors: Robert Nemiroff (MTU) & Jerry Bonnell (UMCP)

There's also the original photographer - who happens to be a native Spanish speaker, but likely can at least read and write English - and you could email him at jordilc86@gmail.com. His Facebook page is here - https://www.facebook.com/jordilopezphotography

As for why none of the other regulars are responding to your concern, I can't say. But I am at least still interested in what others have to say.

Well, the original photographer lectured me on facebook, right under the EPOD photo where we (mostly Hungarians*) tore his >>work of art<< apart. I wrote to the EPOD page owners, as they have published my work in 2013, so I believe they may trust my words as much to at least look into the issue as seriously as I pointed it out. There is no such trust built up with APOD, on the contrary, I often criticize because APOD goes, in my opinion, too much for eye candies and cuties, in detriment of astro-value, as, quite ironically, this APOD issue also demonstrates.

-----------
*I think the Hungarian astrophoto community can be viewed as a school, in the academic/artistic sense, but that is off topic here.

Got a link to that Facebook "discussion"? I'm not finding this APOD photo in his album of photos on Facebook.

[varadinagypal]

Sure,

https://www.facebook.com/EarthPicUSRA/p ... 4728574137

[varadinagypal]

I got a response that the picture's been vetted. I feel like looking at and counting O'Brien's fingers or something.

[varadinagypal]

Since the discussion under the EPOD is public, let us share a response from the author -- already in contradiction with the single exposure claim

[johnnydeep]

Since the discussion under the EPOD is public, let us share a response from the author -- already in contradiction with the single exposure claim

So the photographer provided an explanation that it was actually a composite of three stacked image layers taken "seconds" apart, and one of them had 30% opacity which is why you can see the sun's disk below the hill. Is that right? But if so, it means that at least that one images of the sun was taken when it was fully above the hill. So, yes, it is misleading.

As for this claim in the EPOD thread by commenter Keith Moseley:

Váradi Nagy Pál: Definitely a composite image so claim of ‘single exposure’ does not stand up. However, I recognize the particular array of sunspots, which I saw about a month ago.

I'd be interested in seeing that month older pic showing the same set of sunspots. Have you been able to find it? That would show clear deception.

[varadinagypal]

So,

I compared the picture with the SOHO archive, using the SDO/HMI Continuum image series,

https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/Theater/

and the Sun's disk shows a fair match with the images stamped 2021-09-09T06-00-00 and 2021-09-09T07-30-00, rotated according to the horizontal view, about 70 degrees counter clockwise, as expected I may add. Since the debated claim is not whether the Sun's disk is as it was on the sky on said date, but

whether it is indeed a single exposure image, or something has been done without admitting so -- like putting the entire solar disk... on top of the ground, between the hill and the viewer (think z-layers). I ignore irrelevant details like atmospheric distortions, that's not the question.

The image below is the sum of the original picture (full blue, half green, no red) plus the solar disk from soho 2021-09-09T07-30-00 (no blue, half green, full red).



And let us not forget about how the solar disk is darker than the mist at 4-5 o'clock on the original picture

[varadinagypal]

PS: I photographed the Sun on said date, only in Calcium K, so the spots looked familiar enough to not raise any doubts about the accuracy of the solar disk. The disk, in on its own, looks OK-ish. The way it combines with the landscape is the curious one here.

[Guest]

Hi friends.
I am Jordi Coy, the author of the photography.

Excuse me for my absence in the conversation, as soon as I have seen it I have seen I wanted to enter to give explanations about the image and remove all kinds of doubts.

First I want to say that the raw file is available to all of you, so you can check that it is not a montage and that it is a real image. I will try to put the link in the conversation so that they can download it and I would appreciate it very much, if you check it, comment your feelings for those who come after, please.

It is a single exposure for the image in general and I used 3 shots that I took Seconds later to stack them with a layer mask in Ps at 30%, only for the purpose of having more detail in the spots but not for place the sphere in place. I must say that I have only done this technique 2 times and I did not finish polishing the finishes, that is why the altered image as shown by the companions can give you to understand that the sun is placed in ps on the hill, it is not like that but I understand you perfectly that you have the doubt.

The photograph is made with a filter and a 150-600mm telephoto lens.
in post-production I cut the image because I don't have a multiplier and I wanted to bring the image closer. In addition to stacking for the spots, I made a kind of hdr with a single raw, raising the dark areas to be able to see the landscape thanks to the clouds that were there at the time and the light that was reflected in them.
I did it by raising the exposure and shadows.

Clouds can give the appearance of being behind the sun, but it is because the clouds are so weak that when they pass over the sphere, the same sunlight makes them disappear almost completely, if you look closely, you can see very little small remains of it remain, minimally obscuring some area.

If you have more questions or want to ask me something, you can do it here but you can also send me an email to jordilc86@gmail.com or write a message on Fb, IG ...

I would like there to be no doubt in the air about this image, it is very important to me.
Thank you all.

Download link for RAW:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xJmDas ... sp=sharing

[varadinagypal]

So the single exposure part, as claimed in the original description, is busted. Looking into the raw now.

[Jordi coy]

It was my mistake not to communicate it well in the beginning.
But the doubts that the colleagues have is that the sun is placed on the hill in PS and with the raw it can be verified that the sun, the spots, the people and the tree are in the correct and original place.
the 3 exposures were used only to have more detail in the spots that were already in the raw.
with this test I think all doubts are cleared up.
It is not like this?

[Chris Peterson]

So the single exposure part, as claimed in the original description, is busted. Looking into the raw now.

I don't see a problem. "Single exposure" doesn't mean what it used to. Most new cameras take multiple exposures even if you just push the button once, and do processing internally to expand the dynamic range or to stabilize motion. That's all that was done here, manually, along with some processing to clean things up. The image accurately captures the moment. There's nothing dishonest.

[varadinagypal]

I think (a rather polite form of there's the printscreen) the caption said the published image is a single exposure image. Yet it had a whole solar disk on top of the hill, including the part below the horizon, just too dim to be seen without applying gamma. In my dictionary, that is pants on fire.

Below, I made an honest attempt to process your raw. I tried to curve out the important details, of which even the blue-ish upper rim of the solar disk is one. And without mixing in other images taken seconds or eons after the so called single exposure. The picture below emphasizes what single exposure means, it is of only marginal importance that I can use tools available to everyone, with an acceptable result.

Also note how the Sun is not dimmer than the haze, at 4-5 o'clock. Also note how there is no solar disk below the horizon.

Also note how this image is more honest, though less of an eyecandy and clickbait than the one published as the APOD.

As for APOD's vetting process: shame on you.

890px wide

Higher resolution: https://csillagtura.ro/temp/jordicoy_raw1.jpg

[Chris Peterson]

I think (a rather polite form of there's the printscreen) the caption said the published image is a single exposure image. Yet it had a whole solar disk on top of the hill, just too dim to be seen without applying gamma. In my dictionary, that is pants on fire.

Below, I made an honest attempt to process your raw. I tried to curve out the important details, of which even the blue-ish upper rim of the solar disk is one. And without mixing in other images taken seconds or eons after the so called single exposure. The picture below emphasizes what single exposure means, it is of only marginal importance that I can use tools available to everyone, with an acceptable result.

Also note how the Sun is not dimmer than the haze, at 4-5 o'clock. Also note how there is no solar disk below the horizon.

Also note how this image is more honest, though less of an eyecandy and clickbait than the one published as the APOD.

As for APOD's vetting process: shame on you.

890px wide

Higher resolution: https://csillagtura.ro/temp/jordicoy_raw1.jpg

If I were an APOD editor, I'd accept this image as entirely legitimate, as it exactly represents the scene. Nothing shameful about it.

[varadinagypal]

I think (a rather polite form of there's the printscreen) the caption said the published image is a single exposure image. Yet it had a whole solar disk on top of the hill, just too dim to be seen without applying gamma. In my dictionary, that is pants on fire.

Below, I made an honest attempt to process your raw. I tried to curve out the important details, of which even the blue-ish upper rim of the solar disk is one. And without mixing in other images taken seconds or eons after the so called single exposure. The picture below emphasizes what single exposure means, it is of only marginal importance that I can use tools available to everyone, with an acceptable result.

Also note how the Sun is not dimmer than the haze, at 4-5 o'clock. Also note how there is no solar disk below the horizon.

Also note how this image is more honest, though less of an eyecandy and clickbait than the one published as the APOD.

As for APOD's vetting process: shame on you.

890px wide

Higher resolution: https://csillagtura.ro/temp/jordicoy_raw1.jpg

If I were an APOD editor, I'd accept this image as entirely legitimate, as it exactly represents the scene. Nothing shameful about it.

Chris, this is what APOD published (obviously, without the curves), a whole solar disk, including the parts beyond the horizon, stating it is a single exposure photo. There is no way around this.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris, this is what APOD published (obviously, without the curves), a whole solar disk, including the parts beyond the horizon, stating it is a single exposure photo. There is no way around this.

No way around what? The fact remains, the image captures the scene as it was. Accurately. It's perfectly honest, and apparently the APOD editors agree. If you don't like that, there are plenty of other sites you might prefer visiting instead of this one.

The matter is settled here. Let it go, or just go.

[varadinagypal]

Chris, I find your attitude towards reality, towards verifying claims as they are written, not by wishful interpretation, rather disappointing.

As for the just go part: reported.

[Jordicoy]

Thank you very much Chris, I'm glad to read those words coming from you.
I never send my raws to public places but this time I think it was necessary for colleagues to know that it is not a montage and that I am not trying to deceive anyone.

Varadi, Chris is right, since you saw my photo you have not stopped attacking me, I always give you explanations and you are still in your argument.
In EPOD you told me that you are a boy experienced in solar and that it was impossible for people and trees to be so well defined, adding that it was fake, also with the theme of clouds.
I explained to you humbly and simply how I did it and now you keep attacking me here, after having shown the raw and seeing that everything is in its place!!
what else do you want? what do you want to know?
I do not know more what to tell you, you only need to have been at the time of the photo to know what was like I comment.

[varadinagypal]

Jordicoy: your photo, as published, is no single exposure. The caption claimed single exposure, although featuring a solar disk on top of the ground. End of story, as far as I am concerned, that's a fake, and we've been mislead, for you to obtain a work of art with more cuteness and social media clickbaitiness than contained in the raw.

[varadinagypal]

Jordicoy: Having seen your raw, long story short,

you photoshopped yourself into controversy, even though started from an honest shot.

And some of us still know one thing or two about what's real and what's photoshop, we just don't lecture people about our false claims, cause we avoid false claims. However, we laughed a good deal about both your work of art, with the Sun shining through the horizon, and APOD, for allowing such photoshopped eye candies getting through, and not just publish it, but being proud about vetting it. I mean: there is a Sun in front of the hill.

Thank yourself, and next time, when you claim single exposure, make sure it is exactly that -- or don't make such claims. Single exposure means there is no small print in the footnote.

Re-read my assessments, none have ever said one cannot image people in front of the Sun. I said: there is no way the haze is brighter than the edge of the Sun, and there is no way the Sun shines through the horizon, all on a single exposure. (still a mistery why the people and the tree look like getting more light from the left, but I can live with that, as it could well be a play of nature)

Frankly, I wasted too much effort on outing your photoshop, and yet another APOD which went for cuteness over reality, remember the ISS crossing Saturn from a German dude, if memory serves.

[johnnydeep]

One final question: is the fact that we can detect (with gamma adjustment) the solar disk below/behind the hill due to the fact that it was in reality a photo of the full solar disk when it was fully above the hill a few seconds later, but Photoshopped to match up with solar disks shot a few seconds earlier which were still partly below the hill?

[Chris Peterson]

One final question: is the fact that we can detect (with gamma adjustment) the solar disk below/behind the due to the fact that is was in reality a photo of the full solar disk when it was fully above the hill a few seconds later, but Photoshopped to match up with solar disks shot a few seconds earlier which were still partly below the hill?

Exactly. If I had set this shot up, I'd have been shooting a sequence. In processing, I'd take the primary image (in this case, the shot that caught the people), but if one of the other images had some bit that was sharper (like the sunspots) I'd use that detail. Which is what I think we're seeing here (with a minor processing error, of not masking out completely areas that weren't important). This is a totally reasonable and ethical way of building the final image.

[johnnydeep]

One final question: is the fact that we can detect (with gamma adjustment) the solar disk below/behind the due to the fact that is was in reality a photo of the full solar disk when it was fully above the hill a few seconds later, but Photoshopped to match up with solar disks shot a few seconds earlier which were still partly below the hill?

Exactly. If I had set this shot up, I'd have been shooting a sequence. In processing, I'd take the primary image (in this case, the shot that caught the people), but if one of the other images had some bit that was sharper (like the sunspots) I'd use that detail. Which is what I think we're seeing here (with a minor processing error, of not masking out completely areas that weren't important). This is a totally reasonable and ethical way of building the final image.

Thanks. I now agree, especially as the original photographer is being transparent about what he did (even though I wasn't enough of an imaging processing expert to understand it). And of course, if no one had noticed the image oddities, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Still, a short sentence about how the image was created could have cleared up any confusion. Though I think you're saying that the method used here is so common and routine as to be unremarkable in the extreme, and so no explanation is warranted.

[Chris Peterson]

One final question: is the fact that we can detect (with gamma adjustment) the solar disk below/behind the due to the fact that is was in reality a photo of the full solar disk when it was fully above the hill a few seconds later, but Photoshopped to match up with solar disks shot a few seconds earlier which were still partly below the hill?

Exactly. If I had set this shot up, I'd have been shooting a sequence. In processing, I'd take the primary image (in this case, the shot that caught the people), but if one of the other images had some bit that was sharper (like the sunspots) I'd use that detail. Which is what I think we're seeing here (with a minor processing error, of not masking out completely areas that weren't important). This is a totally reasonable and ethical way of building the final image.

Thanks. I now agree, especially as the original photographer is being transparent about what he did (even though I wasn't enough of an imaging processing expert to understand it). And of course, if no one had noticed the image oddities, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Still, a short sentence about how the image was created could have cleared up any confusion. Though I think you're saying that the method used here is so common and routine as to be unremarkable in the extreme, and so no explanation is warranted.

I do think this kind of processing is routine. It simply serves to more accurately represent the scene. Nothing wrong with that.

But... to the extent that I have an issue with APOD, it's that too many images lack processing details. If I were the editor, I'd insist that those details be included with any image considered for publication. Not because of concerns about ethics or honesty, but because I see this site as only half about astronomy. The other half is about imaging. And that means knowing the details about the source data (usually multiple images) and the basic processing flow.

[owlice]

Admin here, with admin hat on. As a reminder to all, APOD is an outreach site. It uses images to engage and educate people about astronomy and the universe. One pic a day, explained by professional astrophysicists.

varadinagypal, I don't know where you think you might have reported him for his comment, but I have not found anything in the admin logs from you. For the record, Chris was right to suggest that maybe you should stop viewing APOD, as it seems you don't like the site much. Your complaints about the site are noted; I suggest you stop making them now. Thanks.