Grave concerns over the 2008 Astro Imaging competition at SPSP

[h0ughy]

OK I downloaded the form and saved it to use later as a reference to get things ready for this years SPSP imaging comp.
Then I really read it thoroughly today!!

Now I am concerned, really concerned!

It looks as though to me it allows people to submit images taken on internet “rent-a-scopes” to quote from the rules please pay particular attention to rule 4

“4. All images must be the sole work of the entrant. The acquisition equipment must have been under their exclusive control of the entrant at the time the image data was acquired, with all subsequent processing undertaken by the entrant. The inclusion of data obtained from other imagers or public sources is prohibited.”

Undoubtedly I agree that all images must be the work of the entrant – that’s why you enter!!! But it’s the obscure description of the next part of the sentence that really gets me going. “The acquisition equipment must have been under their exclusive control of the entrant at the time the image data was acquired” the “acquisition equipment” as far as I can determine could be the internet as you can “control” a scope remotely anywhere!! I really thought it was to be with your own gear and camera, your own ability to guide and set up your own equipment, and of course your own processing. Some of these remote sites actually allow you to get “them” to process the captured image data that you obtained through some scope you have no hope of owning unless a rich uncle snuffs it and leaves you the estate!!! All this for the pleasurable amount of roughly $100 US per hour for you to image through a 14” RC or something bigger. Bloody expensive potential competition image if you ask me?

I might be jumping the gun here and totally off the beaten track, but this is what I interpret from the rules of the competition.

So I will post the rules for all to read – see what you think? Am I completely stir crazy and blame the weather, or is that what you understand the rules to be saying as well?

[PhotonCollector]

Maybe this is to allow for those members of the SPSP Committee who are also part of the rentascope franchise ?

[Ric]

To me it wouldn't be in the spirit of the competition to remote image.

I suppose the organisers could just add an extra category to cover that possibility.

[rogerg]

I wonder if it makes that much difference? It seems a little unfair, but it also seems a little unfair that a lowly suburban mortgage payer like myself would be competing against a neuro surgeon, or ... whoever, that can afford to buy the 20" RC and STL-11000 for themselves, or a retired person who may have an average telescope but lots more time :)... but ... I accept it as "that's life" :)

I have often thought about this in relation to terrestrial photography competitions. In those I don't think the equipment usually has any significant impact on the judging. But how to translate that to astronomy where it's so equipment focussed? I've never been sure how to fairly judge a astro photography competition because of that. :shrug:

The person using the rent-a-scope does still have to chose a nice subject, frame it well, choose the right exposure and process the image well.... :shrug:

[Omaroo]

So that means, David, that you should have to own the equipment you use to take a photograph? What if I were to take my OTA and camera, and go to a commercial observatory to use one of their mounts because I don't have a guided mount? Is that not kosher?

Maybe it should be worded such that it is expected that you are present, in person, when the equipment - whatever and wherever it is - is used, and that it is under your immediate control. The raw image data collected would then be required to be processed by you personally.

[turbo_pascale]

I think the wording is clear enough. So what if you use a remote scope? Most remote scopes only take the exposures for you - they don't process them (maybe dark subtract at best).

Yep, you're at some advantage of being able to use premium equipment to get good raw data, but you still have to do the rest yourself.

I see no problem with this at all. If you can afford to spend the money to get the data, why not? Let's say you want to get 4 hours of exposures. That's USD$400 (or so). That's a lot of money to spend to win a regional astrophoto comp - AND you still have to be better than everyone else. Your ego would have to be pretty big to spend this kind of money to win a competition don't you think?
Last year's malin awards overall winner used a DSLR - up against high end RC's and cooled CCD's worth $50K+.

As long as you're not sucking down hubble images and merging them in to your own exposures, who cares really?

Slightly off-topic though, my opinion on astro photo comps has always been making sections in the comp based on general equipment category, not the person doing it. Then, when the equipment disparity is taken out of it to some degree (as best it can), then you are focusing on the skills of the imager in both the artistic and processing skills they have.

[AJames]

I seems to me you have two choices.

Submit your images under their rules (however distorted) or just not enter the competition.
Reading this seems there is far more at stake - akin to be more like the shabby competition for Miss World - and all the machinations that THAT entails - than among amateur astronomers doing their best all mostly producing absolutely significant wonderful works.
IMO I think that the judges of the images are just after original works by Imagers. Submissions are obviously to be judged impartially, among at least the entries they received - and how they were obtained. :juggle:
Frankly, I would be more far impressed with good images taken in a homemade 10.5cm telescope and camera, than someone who has all the (expensive) bells and whistles available to take the images.
Frankly, I have been far more impressed with the Imagers in IIS and their works, than any mere competition made by an unknown selection of their presumed peers. If I had the money, I'd give everyone who presents an image $1000 bucks, for the pleasure I get is viewing excellent images by seemingly dedicated and quality amateur photographers for FREE.

It should be all about non-monetary pride and personal achievement.

As one who doesn't have the opportunity to undertake such endeavours...
Regardless.
Mes' Tips My Lid to You... :2thumbs:

[tornado33]

Heres my 2 cents worth. Consider the work in setting up a rig from scratch. You have to source all the gear. The set it up. Polar alingment is a very important part of that, especialy for portable setups, but even in fixed observatories it still has to be done when it is first set up. Collimation, accurate focus, locating the objects and so on. A failure in just one of these processes can ruin efforts to obtain good images.

In remote imaging all of these things have been done for you. Yes, you need to decide what object to image, perhaps adjust the framing of it, and decide what LRGB image length and numbers to take, and then process them. But seeing all the setting up of the gear is done for you, it may be fair to have a separate remote imaging section, where remote imagers can compete on a level playing field, and a DSLR imaging section, where DSLR imagers can also compete on a level field.

Remote imaging, though it doesnt involve buying such superexpensive gear, is necessarily costly on a per hour basis as
1 the initial purchase /setup costs of the observatories are so high, they need to be defrayed by charging enough per/hour
2 to get the best benefit from these high quality scopes/mounts, one may as well go very deep, several hours per object, hence a high cost per object
Scott

[Peter Ward]

While I've never been motivated to enter the SPSP comp, I don't see a problem with their rules. To get an extraordinary image does take some effort, and, for deeps sky at least, some seriously long exposures.

They have lots of different categories, so, again there many many types of images that can do well.

The Malin Awards are are quite different. While technical aspects of an image do count (particularly the colour ! :) ) they don't count that much.... Terry Cuttle's overall winning image had all the *right* elements: great technique, beautiful subject matter (McNaught) which was also framed superbly.

The fact that Terry chose to haul his rig up to the Glass-House mountains to get all those elements in made him a deserving winner.

Despite the heavy artillery in my backyard, the images I actually did well with were taken with very modest gear. Such is the nature of the DM awards which I suspect reward something fresh/different or a novel approach.

That's pretty hard to do with the vanilla/bright deep sky subjects: M42/M8/M17/M16/47 Tuc/Omega etc. have all been done to death...so choosing them as you subject you'd want to also do something out of the ordinary with them.

Just my two cents worth....

Peter

[davidpretorius]

dont worry houghy, do planetary images instead, only the cool dudes enter this comp, not internet astro lazies :P

[Bassnut]

I totally agree with you Houghy.

Being a GRAS affiliate rules me out anyway due to clause 2 ("amateur"). I have a financial interest in Astrophotography.

But even if I could, I wouldnt enter with a GRAS scope image. Although many would see this as acceptable, and have good reasons, it doesnt feel right to me personally. Much of the image quality (regardless of equipment used) comes from gear set up and operation. Most of the expertise of the GRAS setup/operation is not of my doing.

I see an image entry as a product totally by the entrant, in every respect, if it isnt, then anything might as well be acceptable, it would be impossible to control.

If my (GRAS) gear was set up by me in my backyard, or even remote and totally done by me, then fair enough, but it aint, period.

I dont know exactly what the SPSP comp has in mind, this is just my personal opinion, and also dont have any problem with a comp that allows other than the entrants data/gear/processing, so long as its obvious and stated in the rules.

[Peter Ward]

Fred, never thought of it that way!....and you are right!

It doesn't make sense to discount all the aspects of instrument set-up eg:
Polar alignment
Colimination
Guider calibration
camera configuration (eg correct spacing) etc etc.

None of which can be done remotely and by definition must have been done by someone else.....hence "all my own work" *cannot be claimed by the entrant....remote users don't have to know one end of a telescope from another.

Just hand over the $ and click here. ;)




* O.k. it is possible you flew to New Mexico/wherever and set the whole thing up.

[gbeal]

Fat chance of me entering, or attending but I agree with you Huff, I have always maintained that if you are sitting next to the scope, getting dew on you, and freezing your nuts off, you are not doing it right.

[Bassnut]

Anyway Houghy, I think clause 4 is very well worded, I would see GRAS as a "public source" and therefore not valid in the SPSP comp.

Peter, although I had a part in physically setting up my G15 scope, having it available at any time to anyone for use takes an amazing amount of work, Im sure you would be stunned if you saw the time that went into it. And yes the items you list are all part of an images success, even a DSLR/standard lens on an EQ5 takes considerable skill (sheesh, MORE skill, you turn on a PME and go ;-). It all counts in the sweat that is expended in a comp entry.

[Peter Ward]

Preaching to the converted Fred....I started with a Royal 60mm achromat many, many, many moons ago... :) (yes, I remember F-Troop)

While I haven't quite got there (indeed, due the sheer lack of time) the access to my observatory via the web.... due me (often) being on the other side of the planet, is not a trivial task indeed !



Also I continue to wuss out and still like to image through the AP glass ;)

[Greg Priestley]

Hi all

This thread has just been drawn to my attention. As the organiser of the Astros at the SPSP, I'd like to actually provide a detailed response, but am currently stuck in Adelaide for work with another late night on the cards.

I will respond in detail when I get back to Sydney across the weekend or early next week.

The rule was very deliberately worded. I have very definitive view of what I intended.

You can continue to speculate if you like, but it would be better if you actually waited for something concrete then just muddying the water.

Cheers
Greg Priestley

[h0ughy]

I look forward to that Greg, although I didnt expect the response that the thread seemed to generate as it is speculative and only my interpretation of rulings.


I look forward to hearing your view of your wording. enjoy your trip:)

[h0ughy]

What me image planets - only in widefields Dave, only in widefields..............:P

[h0ughy]

for the rest that added to the thread - thank you for conducting civil discussion and raising interesting points of view. Lets hope that one day we get clear skies..........

[Terry B]

Not adding to the debate but ?being obtuse. What is GRAS?

[Bassnut]

Global-Rent-A-Scope, pay, then click to image ;-). http://www.global-rent-a-scope.com/

[AJames]

Aside from these machinations pertaining to the SPSP, does any one known of astronomical writings, field sketching or even written description competitions?

Perhaps I could enter that? :(

[turbo_pascale]

GRAS = Global Rent A Scope - http://www.global-rent-a-scope.com/

[Peter Ward]

Yep...gets a bit fuzzy....

Was Rob McNaught an amateur when he took a snap of his comet with a Canon DSLR?....or would that only count if he used the UK Schmidt?

Therein lies the rub. I suspect unless use an "institutional telescope" (read really big telescopes that belong to Universities etc.) then you are an "amateur" ie taking images for the love of it, not for a paycheque or research paper.

[dugnsuz]

I'm sure the guys at SPSP will judge each entry on its own merits...
ED80 or Keck!
Doug

[space oddity]

A competition should be about skill, but then again, choice of equipment is part of that skill. As the skill component includes guiding, polar alignment, perhaps fixed pier initial setup, GRAS images are not in the spirit of the competition as these important and technically demanding aspects have not been the exclusive work of the entrant. Perhaps a weighting system could be in place to allow the less cashed up entrants to be able to compete with the Tak / SBIG brigade. This would test Greg's skill at weighting!:shrug: Perhaps, extra or different categories could be in place on the basis of rig cost eg under 5 K rig, 5-10 K up to house mortgage cost rig. This will reward the resourcsefull for their skill of setting up on the cheap as well as technical and aesthetic skill ie apples competing against apples. Oh for the good old days of 35mm photography competitions when it was application of some pretty basic technical/ equipment skills combined with a large dash of aesthetic /compositional skill.

[AJames]

Too right. However, I just wish they were more polite.

For me, give us a Polaroid Camera any day...NO. I've heard they aren't gonna make the film anymore... OK....
How about instead a 2 megapixal digital camera, 20cm maximum aperture, two bullets, and a bottle of whiskey...
OR BETTER STILL
Just the best picture taken ONLY at the Star Party!

[bojan]

Personally, I believe that those competitions are meaningless.
They do favor big and expensive equipment, and that's it.
The skill and knowledge defintely does play a role here, but no skill can help to get a better photo without adequate tracking or if someone has cheap & poor lens.
I like the idea of a challenge.. like what Ajames suggested.
Like, try to take a photo of a standard object (not M42, but something more difficult, and the same for everyone) with some standard equipment and that should be a condition of entry to a competition. Only then we are comparing apples with apples: the actual skills of competitors are in the game.

[iceman]

I don't think they're a waste of time. Yes there's issues and nothing is perfect, but there'll always be someone with bigger and better equipment.

Winning isn't important to me (though it's nice and I certainly enter to win) - mostly I enjoy the motivation to capture and present an image in the best possible way. It encourages you to think more about composition, object choice, content, framing, presentation - going that extra step to set your image apart from everyone else.

It makes me a better astrophotographer.

[davidpretorius]

Handicapping is easy

1. mark out the field of play, ie where all the imaging scopes will go
2. then from one end to the other, water drench the field according to the $$ value of the mount.

Ie tascos on eq1 and afocal digicams are on hard ground..........rcx400 and max mounts basically start to sink in quicksand as soon as the crane unloads it. :D

[bojan]

But, Mike, if winning is not important, and presentation is, you do not need competitions like that. BTW, you already have this forum and your website to present your work.
Think of it as application of Olympic principles: If we have a 100metres run, all runners are placed in the SAME condition at the start line, and they run after the start signal.
THIS is the fair competition, where skill, determination and endurance and speed is accouted for IMHO, of course.
But if steroids, wings or booster rockets are allowed here, what would you think about that kind of Olympic games?

[avandonk]

I for a short time thought that when Hubble started finally producing stunning images after it got its 'specs' that it was pointless to image from the ground. How could we compete even with an 8 meter scope?

How wrong I was! Imaging has never been more accessible for the amateur.

I get the greatest enjoyment out of doing better with practice with the equipment I have. Not only am I trying out or developing better processing methods I am also having a lot of fun modifying 'cheaper' equipment to get it to perform better. I have no qualms about cutting 100mm from the tube of a 100ED. I think I would be shot at dawn for doing the same to a TAK 150mm APO! Although if I had one, and it would make it a better performer?

I have never entered any astro imaging competition as an 8x10" print does not do the sort of images I do (wide fields) any real justice. Even an A1 size print does not show the detail that is inherently there. So does that mean all entered prints should be A1 size?

By all means enter any competition as everybody is equally subject to the rules. All h0ughy was trying to do was get some sort of clarification of the rules.

I am sure that the choosing of the judges is far more important than the base rules. Any competition that was perceived to be unfair would soon wither due to lack of entries.

Meanwhile we should all keep practicing instead of quibbling. I know I need to!

Bert

[AJames]

Oh Dear. Yeah. Concrete is only any good, only if it is set and you have both your feet in it!

However, although you might know where you stand, really the biggest problem is getting the heavy block over the guard rail to throw it into the river...

[tornado33]

I agree, Bert. Its so much fun seeing images from gear I have that werent possible when I first got it.
Scott

[Satchmo]

If I recall correctly, ASNSW judges do request the submission of a full resolution digital file for examination as well as a paper print.

[Rodstar]

When I read the rule that HOughy is referring to, I assumed it was in response to something that happened last year when a person submitted an image that combined data they had collected on an object with data ANOTHER person had collected on the same object. If that is the intent of the rule, it seems reasonable to me that a person be limited to submitting only their own data, and not someone else's.

Although on one view it may seem a bit arbitrary, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Having said that, I think there should be more collaboration in the sharing of astronomical image data within the amateur community. The combined efforts of a few can often exceed the sum of the parts.

[Peter Ward]

Frankly I think people are kidding themselves if they seriously think getting a great image is only about the equipment. You don't need super expensive gear to get a great image, but I'd suggest you do need to be careful, so whatever you use, will not be pushed beyond its limits and render the subject in a technically poor way.

I shot the cover of this month's AS&T using a ED80mm APO, a Manfrotto tripod and Pentax DSLR. Hardly and expensive ensemble.

Some absolutely fabulous planetary images can be taken with nothing more than a modest scope, 5x barlow and $200 webcam.

Current DSLR's have come a long way, are very affordable and can be used to take excellent deep sky imagery.

Expensive gear simply makes the job easier, O.K. sometimes a lot easier.. (e.g. autoguiding), but you still have to get all the focus/tracking/framing/shadow detail/etc/etc. elements right no matter how expensive the rig.

[montewilson]

Guys - Give us a break! We spent a lot of meeting time nutting out the rules of the competition. The motivation of the clause has nothing to do with remote scopes. It was to be sure that the entrant, is the one who took the picture (and subs), nothing more.

There were complaints because we didn't have this rule last year. Now there are complaints because we do. Woe is us. Greg Priestly spent a lot of time writing and re-writing the rules until we were all happy with them.

Running Australias largest star party is not easy. It is all done by volunteers, all prizes are dontated. Please understand the challenges involved in pleasing everyone.

Monte Wilson
Secretary
ASNSW

[Rodstar]

Thanks Monte, Greg, and all those who work so hard to make the SPSP such a fabulous event. I for one take off my hat to you.

[h0ughy]

Yes I do agree a lot of work does go into it.

Monte,

I do understand the processes that would have happened to get to a point where the rules were released, but I make no apology for my interpretation. That was how I read it. SO my apologies go to you and Greg for making you fret about this thread. It was not the intention nor the direction. Merely making a discussion of a topic:ashamed:

[AJames]

I think you might find their two issues here running alongside each other here.

1) H0ughty I think, has simply been questioned the rule - without criticism - that;


To me this is fair enough, and is based on judgement of images made solely by the imager. There are no complaints about this rule - the ASNSW is running this competition anyway. How you decide to run it is the choice of the management of the ASNSWI.

However, to properly reiterate this issue, H0ughty (IMO) original questioning statement is;


I think his point, and my own personal view, is quite valid. In fact it is one of the key and current problems of defining what amateur "images" actually are, and what they are actually contributing to the process. (Obviously, for the sake of an example, if I was given access to the AAO for a night, and entered an image to the competition, would I not have an unfair advantage if I made an image myself?)
Clearly, gaining the image at the telescope is also completely separate (or is it?) to the processing via stacking or software manipulation. Concern here I think is more about compliance for the competition not about the current ASNSWI's rules themselves.

As to Greg's statement;



The point is others here, including me, are unsure - held especially in light of the diversity with mostly expensive equipment and commercial software presently held now by the amateur astronomer.

(IMO this statement has an air of superiority and "un-genuine spirit" which comes across is a little condescending. After all, your SPSP relies on others beyond the ASNSWI to come along to this event to make it viable and profitable. It also comes across - rightly or wrongly - as avoiding the question.)

2) The secondary issue here, as I see it, is the "artistic" nature of photographic or imaging and the complexity of judging images or entering any photographic competition.

Most here, IMO, are not being disingenuous, or even showing any degree of pomposity. Sadly, our amateur astronomy these days is becoming more a rich-person's sport, with the divide continuously widening. Much of the debate here (IMO) is more about the quintessence of the modern amateur imager and the amount (or lack) of their abilities. Frankly - some monetary prize is meaningless unless it assists the amateur improving his or her skills.

[sjastro]

I agree, the other factor is that most astroimagers start off with modest optical equipment and make the transistion to the more expensive stuff. The imaging and processing skills are usually aquired during the modest equipment phase. The aquisition of an RC for example might represent a fine tuning process in image quality.

I have seen many excellent SCT images which rival or are superior to RCs of the same aperture.

Here is an example by Alex Sanz http://www.astrosurf.com:80/asanz/GNGC4216.htm

Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small

[Peter Ward]

Bollocks ! (Humm...seem to have made that quote elsewhere :) )

None other than Al Nagler said "the best view you can get from a telescope or eyepiece it the one that frames it best"

Sure, if you want a super high resolution image of small galaxy or planetary nebula, you probably need a Hubble variant complete with adaptive optics. Sorry, that's just physics....and the current commercial reality is that is going to cost...and even if you do have the required gear: yep, nice narrow field shot, but technical excellence aside, does it have that something extra? that "wow" factor?

BUT...there are many possible subjects, that can be captured in fields of view, from horizon to horizon, to a few degrees, that need nothing expensive or high-tech. Just a good eye and good planning, technique and modest budget.

The cool thing about the gear available today, is it doesn't have to be a rich persons pursuit. Sure, state of the art gear is going to cost you, but last time I checked, it did not produce award winning images all by itself ;)

Probably my 50 cents worth now.. :)

[AJames]

Peter,
When I first read this I was a little miffed, :sadeyes: mainly because I thought I've already have defended in this particular thread - especially much of what you have implied in your response. Instead took the adage "think before your post." I did.
Firstly, I agree with much of what you say. In fact, I often feel like for much of my astronomical life to be a defender of such attitudes. There is no doubt astronomy can be done on a shoestring, and that literally anybody can can obtain visual or photographic or CCD images. Ie. The Moon for example. I encourage any newbees to do so.
However, this is dancing around the issue, as we are talking about really image competition where there is a huge range of haves and have nots. Yet unlike what you say here, there are hidden costs, such as travel (petrol) costs to and from observing sites, etc. Most (majority males) who are not single, without mortgages or family commitments, and who have disposable income to support their interests.
I also still think, like our whole Society in general, that were are too culture obsessed with promoting and congratulating the biggest, the fastest, or record breaking rather than celebrating the achievement based on modest costs or degrees of difficulty. Why should amateur astronomy be any different?
What do I more fear (IMO) is that some of the high-rollers of the amateur astros are more seeking self affirmation or kudos for their outlays rather an open honest appraisal of their works. If they are doing this for egotistical gain, well in doing so, all they generate competition more as "mate against mate." (Hence my "sport" comment in my previous post.) This is why IMO that monetary prizes are meaningless unless it assists the amateur improving his or her skills.
As for Al Nagler, well the last time I saw the cost of one of his eyepieces, I felt I need to take out a bank loan to afford one - whose price was comparable to a modest sized telescope with all the trimmings! Frankly, the most expensive eyepiece (my very own "Precious") I have is a truly beautiful 26mm French Clavé Plössl, which reveals contrast on a scale nothing seen elsewhere, and has been used much in doing planetary nebula observations. It cost about $200 US in 1990 dollars. It is the best piece - jewel in the crown) of astronomical equipment I personally own. Clearly it is probably out of the ball park for most amateur to have such a beasty, but does it mean that because of it my observations are to be adjudged better or worst than someone else.
So IMO I do think an competition among astros should be both performance and "artistic" based, as well as assessing the ways in which the image was obtained. In this case, I think some motives have been objectified in the ASNSWI's rules and the judging committee. If they are doing this - then all is well and good. Whether they are doing this or not has it onus solely on entrants themselves. If you are unhappy with the rules, then don't enter.

This might indeed be "bollocks", as you most eloquently put, but I think this is closer to being true. (though I still might be wrong! :doh:).

... Just another 50 cents worth. :)

(At this rate we will be able to buy something even better! :whistle:)

Andrew

Note: I have removed some my previous post relating to the ASNSWI, which may have caused some offence, and for the sake of harmony I have removed it.

[Peter Ward]

Maybe, Maybe not. I for one have a serious personal investment in Astro-gear but have never entered the ANSW comp, hence I can only assume the argument below doesn't apply to myself of like minded "high-rollers"

True, I do enter another well known comp, but for totally different reasons.

Sure equipment can make a difference, but counts little for creativity, composition and sheer effort in capturing of the many amazing objects that grace our skies.

[xstream]

Thread closed at the request of the originator.