View Single Post
  #14  
Old 14-07-2019, 11:58 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,321
Love some of the images. Those widefield images from Troy in particular and a couple of stunning nightscapes.

There are different categories and some require massive effort and skill and some require just a bit of planning and effort. Seems a bit unbalanced at times in that regard. A good deep sky image can take hugely expensive gear, lots of travel and time and lots of processing skill. 50 things to get right as opposed to a few things to get right.

A good landscape requires knowledge of exposure and lenses and mostly planning and good framing and subjects. The point is 1 hour versus 50 hours. Not to diminish their creative efforts but its more the time and difficulty factors are nowhere near equal.

Perhaps more categories for the deep sky would be good for the competition.

Deep sky can be Nebulae, Galaxies, Star clusters, narrowband.

Widefield could be broadened as well. FSQ type images for example, narrowband as its own category. At the moment I think FSQ images would be competing with lens DSLR type images.


Greg.
Reply With Quote