Hi everyone,
I really appreciate this conversation. As the owner of the image, please allow me to provide some information and clarity on the situation.
This photo was taken in July of 2020 (over four years ago), when I had less than one of year of astrophotography experience. I submitted it to APOD around that same time, and they decided to publish it just now.
Before you criticize too harshly - think about how much you've learned about astrophotography in the last four years, and how much the equipment and software has evolved in that time. I was a beginner, with a dream of winning an APOD - so I collected some data with my 8" SCT from a bortle 9 sky in Washington DC, and processed it to DEATH. Yes, that's right - I wanted to squeeze every little detail out of this data that I could. In doing so, I over processed it. I destroyed the data with deconvolution and sharpening tools from multiple applications. To my inexperienced eyes, it looked really cool. And, at the time, there were lots of FB and IG astrophotographers processing their images this way. I've grown a lot in the hobby since that time.
When the nice folks at APOD reached out to me last week about this image being selected, I offered up a newer SHO version of the Bubble Nebula I took in 2021 to replace it - but they opted to keep the older version. I respect their decision, as it is ultimately their website and their subjective eyes as to what deserves to be an APOD. I was still very honored any image of mine was selected, old or new.
I knew the harsh processing and artifacts would bring out the AP police - and maybe rightly so. There's a school of AP-ers out there that are "purists", and hold other hobbyists accountable when it comes to being "overly-subjective" during the processing of data. This is not necessarily a bad thing. At the same time, all of us take liberties with color, sharpness, noise reduction, brightness, etc. with every single image. There's a fine line there, one which ALL of us are guilty of crossing. My current philosophy is somewhere in the middle. I like to take some liberties, but I also want to respect the data.
Would I process this data the same way now, more than 4 years later? Absolutely not. Am I proud of this image? Yes - it's a reminder of how far I've come, and a reminder to not be so harsh with others' subjective decisions on how they process their own images. When I look at this old image, I still feel something and see an interesting and beautiful astronomical object. Selfishly, that's really all that matters to me. And if it makes other people feel something similar, then that's great too.
I invite you to check out my astrobin
https://www.astrobin.com/users/chadleader/ and website:
https://www.ancientphotonsastro.com/. I really love the hobby and want to respect it. I realize this APOD is not a popular one amongst many of the heavy hitters of astrophotography. But, hopefully reading this will provide some context and perspective.
Thanks, and clear skies to you all. I look forward to seeing many of your images as APODs some time soon, and maybe if I'm lucky enough, I'll snag another in the future as well.
Chad
NGC 7635: The Bubble Nebula
. What irritates me a little is the fact that the APOD image shown cannot be found anywhere else on the internet, so there is no information on how the fine structures were created. This surprises me, because Chad Leader is one of the professionals.
Happy Halloween!
