2008 CWAS David Malin Awards

[iceman]

I wasn't able to make it up to the DM awards yesterday (it was Kate's birthday).

I look forward to reading the reports of those that made it up there.. Give us a report, who were the winners?

Some spectacular images were submitted, can't wait to see them all.

[EddieT]

Hi Mike,
I couldn't make it down to Parkes either this weekend, so am looking forward to finding out the results as well.

The array of images certainly looked excellent from the display opening pictures John sent out.

[iceman]

C'mon I know some of you must be back by now..

Spill the beans :)

[strongmanmike]

Overall - Martin Pugh's Lambda Centauri narrow band
Amateur deep sky - Martin Pugh's Lambda Centauri
Amateur Solar System - Phil Hart's Luna Eclipse sequence
Amateur Wide field: Phil Hart's Crux region
Star Trails in the landscape: Gary Hills Star Trails with tree
Semi Pro- Peter Ward's M104
Inovation Prize - not awarded
under 16's - not awarded

Honorable mentions went to: Mike Sidonio X2, Jason Jennings X2, Brad Le Brocque, Phil Hart (a couple?), Paule Hease, Gary Hill (a couple?) and two other people who's names I forget (sorry)

106 entries this year (with no Comet McNaughts this time) so the best year yet and David said the standard of entries was so high that it took him an entire day of judging to settle the awards the longest it had ever taken him and most of this was due to the Amateur Deep Sky category :)

Here are some photos of the event (from my web site so kinda from my perspective sorry but interesting I hope?)

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/david_malin_awards_2008

The dinner was fab with Fred Watson excelling in his entertaining abilities and lots of beer and wine too :drink::drink::drink:

Cheers

Mike

[Rodstar]

Congratulations to all of the winners. Martin Pugh's work is really quite extraordinary...I now have one of his framed images adorning my wall at work, and it gets many comments from people who have no interest in astronomy as a hobby.

[spacezebra]

Congrats to all entries.

We have Phil Hart running an Astrophotograpgy Workshop at Border Stargaze - so I am thrilled that he has also won a Malin Award!

Again congrats to all.

Cheers Petra d.

[Peter Ward]

Congratulations to Martin for his well deserved result!

Some more spin on the event, plus some Quicktime VR's can be found here.

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/CWAS2008.html

Regards
Peter

[iceman]

Thanks Peter and Mike for the updates. The photos are very cool.

I was fortunate enough to receive an honourable mention for my Moon, Venus and Mercury conjunction (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=29557) widefield image.

Well done to all the prize winners for a fantastic display of astrophotography!

So "Twilight" is the theme for 2009? hmm very interesting! Time to get thinking on that.

[anthony.tony]

Here are some shots at the Dinner and Fred Watson. Tony

[Garyh]

Yes, Congrads to Martin with his beautiful narrow band image and to the other winners and everyone who managed a honorable mention.
Like Mike had mentioned David said the standard of entries was very high and took him the best part of a day to go through.

Another Honorable mention went to Eddie Trimarchi ^^^ for his Eta mosaic and the innovation award went to a Lady from the CWAS but I can`t remember her name at the moment..
Yes Twilight, sounds like a challenge this time!
cheers Gary
cheers.

[Garyh]

Great to catch up with you again Tony! :thumbsup:
also was nice to meet some other IIS members and put a face to the name! :)
cheers

[Peter Ward]

Sorry Gary...there was no innovation award this year. At least according to John Sarkissian.

Cheers
Peter

[anthony.tony]

A few more shots at the Inn , Tony

[anthony.tony]

some more pics from Saturday CWAS Astrofest. Tony

[Garyh]

Maybe it was another honorable mention then?
The piccy with a person with there telescope!...:thumbsup:
and congrads again for your M104..I thought that would get Davids attention! I liked that eclipse mosaic but.;)
Mikes hand of god image was verrry nice as well as Jase`s SMC mosaic...
I`m glad I didn`t have to choose a winner!
cheers

[EddieT]

Wow, the stuff that happens while you're at work!

Some great pictures of the event there guys, sorry to have missed it this year!

Well done Peter, you pipped me again :) Gary, Mike, all the winners and honourably mentioned, Congratulations to all!

[jase]

Certainly was great to catch up with Mike, Peter, Paul and Gary amongst many others. Rather strange to be known by IIS alias. As I sat down at the dinner table on Saturday night, I started speaking with Jerry who I later discovered is 47Tuc on these forums (at the time we had a discussion/debate around testing of optics and the Strehl ratio). Great and stimulating conversation to be had with the sharing of imaging ideas and concepts. Kind of scary when you get some keen imagers in a room together.

Well done to Martin Pugh for taking out the overall. A remarkable image indeed. I had to go back early Sunday morning to the dish for another glance before the long journey home. To be selected out of 100+ photos submitted is certainly an achievement. I found David's citations to be rather valuable, though at times the obvious were stated (IMO).

Well done to all winners and honourable mentions.

[anthony.tony]

Some more pics Tony

[Peter Ward]

Ah! That would have been Melissa Hulbert's honorable mention! ....she is a long standing member of SAS & does excellent public outreach work at Sydney Observatory....we christened the image (Moon, Venus and rogue Bishop) "three heavenly bodies" ...Melissa didn't seem to mind.

[Martin Pugh]

Many thanks everyone for your thoughtful posts and comments.

Indeed, I would like to acknowledge all of the other entries and winners; the quality, imagination and skill were all outstanding in every respect.

Rod....you certainly had a good eye when you picked up the NGC 6726 mosaic from SPSP...it was nominated as a Honourable Mention.

once again, I appreciate your posts.

cheers and clear skies....and until next year.

Martin

[EddieT]

Many congratulations Martin! A most deserved win.

[Screwdriverone]

Thanks for posting the pics Anthony.Tony!

I would like to point out something strange......

Picture 1 of post 18 seems to show a reflection? of someone laughing in a frame on the back wall

Now I am not sure as to how a reflection shows up so big from a photo taken so far away, or how the reflection seems to be green? or that it sort of resembles a baby giggling.

Can anyone explain this to me who may have been there?

Is it a holographic picture which might explain the green tinge, or has something else been captured?

Anyone? My goosebumps have rocketed to new highs if its something unexplained....... :scared::scared::scared:

Chris

[EddieT]

Hi Chris,
Yeah that looks weird ! Looking at picture 3, where the baby is in pic1, is actually a doorway. So it *looks* like there is a wide-screen TV on the other side and the baby was on it at the time.....I'm guessing, but it sort-of looks like the corner of a tv in another room.

[anthony.tony]

Hello it's the wide Screen TV at the entrance of the Bar You can only see half of it from where the shot was taken . Tony

[Screwdriverone]

Ahh, thanks guys, it was starting to freak me out a bit.

Ha ha, sound like a wimp dont I, thought you might have channeled the other side there Anthony.

Thanks for clearing it up.

Cheers

Chris

[Peter Ward]

It's interesting to review the results.... and possible conclusions.

Cooled CCD users + narrow field, dominated the deep sky sections.

DSLR's did very well in wide field/bright object sections.

...but above all...composition and colour were essential to winning an award...

Make of it what you will.....

A splendid time was had by all.....and on to 2009 ! :)

[strongmanmike]

Having less people in your category must be helpful too..? :whistle:

Need some more semi pros to enter next year to keep you on your toes Peter ;)

Personally I think the semi pro devision is not necessary, I mean you and Martin have almost identical equipment, and Jason Jennings used the same type of equipment remotely and paid for the data even, so what's the difference? :shrug:

[anthony.tony]

Some more pics of the awards . Reguard's Tony

[Garyh]

Just thought I post this picture of my entry Windswept Stars so people that didn`t manage to attend can get a better look!
cheers Gary

[iceman]

Beautiful image, Gary.

The lighting on the foreground trees is lovely!

[EddieT]

Yeah, thanks Gary.
Sort-of looks like the stars are pushing the trees over....except they're moving in the opposite direction, but you can't tell that without knowing :)

It's beautiful.

[Peter Ward]

Ah! But it was always about quality, not quantity ;) ...I understand there were a bit over a dozen semi-pro entrants but the division was created to avoid a swag of prizes going to just one group who were perceived to have hardware "advantage" no-one else could afford.

Clearly that situation has changed, as there are a number of amateurs in Oz now with some pretty impressive pieces of kit (eg Martin, Jase, Steve Mike, et al) I don't make the rules and have to work within them like everyone else.

What may change is the "rent-a scope" aspect. As the "all my own work" concept falls flat when you pay for data from a remote instrument. Where is the line drawn? i.e. is downloading Hubble data O.K.? 2 metre SLOOH data?

It then pretty much comes down to an image processing competition which would be silly....and not representative of essential efforts taken to set-up, accurately, polar align, get the right camera spacing etc. etc.

That said, CWAS have given Australian astro-photographers a much needed forum and boost. The standard of entries has gone from, well, pretty average, to truly world class.

If you thought 2008 was tough...I suspect we "aint seen nuthin yet" just wait until 2009! :)

[jase]

...but I wonder how many DSLR deep sky entries there were?? I was amazed at the quality of all categories, certainly comparing the online versions of last years entries. The bar has certainly been raised, but I also sense this is relative. Better equipment, improved processing skills and experience etc.

Considering next year is the international year of astronomy... will CWAS step up... Perhaps we'll see fireworks (not sparklers) and cute grid girls posing behind you as your handed the award...whom later get sprayed in cheap champagne by the category winners.:lol::D;)



Mike, Are you confusing equipment with the category?? I do agree with you in that the semi pro section is misleading. We are ultimately all amateurs no matter which way you look at it. The level of quality on display this year would have to blur the lines between amateur deep sky and semi pro. Perhaps this needs to be revised in the future.

[jase]

Hmmm interesting proposition Peter. What defines "all my own work"? Do you mean to say that Rob Gendler who uses a remote 20" RC in Mayhill in NM or the 14.5" RC in Pingelly, WA as not being "all his own work", considering this two scopes are available through the lightbuckets rental telescope network? Or how about RJ Gabany who remotely uses a 20" RC at the Blackbird observatory, NM in which you can also buy time on... Or Adam Block's recent images taken with a 24" RC from the University of Arizona... I could go on and on. ACQUIRING data locally or remotely makes absolutely no difference. Note the emphasis on "acquiring", this implies you're not simply downloading hubble, slooh or other such digital sky survey data. This is where the line is clearly drawn.

The availability of high end equipment and as such premium data to the amateur is now becoming a reality...internet controlled scopes and their services are maturing at a rapid rate. Only 4-5 years ago, I wouldn't have thought an amateur would have access to a 24" RC under darks skies. Internet controlled scopes will revolutionise high end astrophotography over time. As more players enter the arena, pricing will drop and services will increase.

There is no denying that having good data to start with helps, but as you and others clearly know, having good data doesn't assure you of obtaining an award. Imaging processing is king...period.

[Peter Ward]

Jase,

I see where you are coming from here, but disagree in that IMHO IP skills are not what the DM Awards only seem to be about.

There have been many compelling images that have won previously that were technically average , but subject/framing/composition rich. (Bridge climbers and Venus transit comes to mind....)

Getting back to remotely acquired images....I have not problem if the remote site was also set-up by the astrophotographer. Adam Block does this, as do many others. Yet I still believe the lines get blurred if you are only gathering data and are relying on external expertise to provide instrument set-up, calibration, alignment etc.

As software gets more sophisticated, end users may well have only to enter a RA/Dec and simpy pass over the credit card for 20 hours of data at that location. Where is the skill in that?

That said...I understand CWAS will very likely allow "rent-a scope" images...but are also likely to create a single category for them (much like semi-pro) in an effort to keep the playing field a bit more even.

Cheers
Peter

[anthony.tony]

Thats a top Image Gary. Reguard's Tony

[jase]

…but Peter, you are talking about a minority which have been set-up by the astrophotographer. Many don’t own the equipment, so I don’t know how plausible this is as a guide or to make such a judgement. Let’s take SSRO (http://www.starshadows.com/) (Star Shadows Remote Observatory) for example. A group of keen astrophotographers sharing high-end equipment in both North and Southern hemisphere skies. In the case of the Northern installation, it’s located at NMSkies, where Mike and Lynn rice would have performed the installation/setup. This is similar to Rob’s 20” RC. For their Southern installation, they utilise one of the many PROMPT (http://www.physics.unc.edu/%7Ereichart/prompt.html) 16” RC at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile, undoubtedly not set up by the SSRO group, but other professionals that are part of the PROMPT GRB service.



What type of skill are you referring too? Is setting up the equipment such a skill? Read the manual(s), spend some quality time with the scope under clear skies? Hmmm are these skills? I'd probably call it knowledge. They do provide an excellent insight into the challenges astrophotographers face. This is going to sound blunt, but when you’ve been imaging for sometime and your system is tuned, acquiring data becomes a mundane activity especially when you’ve got automation such as focusing, pointing/platesolving - as you would know. Surely watching guide star corrections on a 5+ hour imaging run isn’t a skill. Remote imaging provides incredible imaging efficiencies. You pay a premium, and as such in return you get premium data to process. The point being however, you don’t get a great image handed to you on a silver platter. You still need to work the data to bring out the best. Image processing is still the real skill (certainly for DSO work anyway).



While remote imaging isn’t for everyone, it still has its place and it’s much larger than many people believe. If people think the likes of Rob Gendler monitored a guide star while acquiring data for his latest 20 panel, 60 hour mosaic, then its time for a reality check. I’m ok either way, should CWAS adopt a policy/classification in the future. Perhaps, such images should sit in the semi pro category to give you guys a run for the money, if the category was originally established for those with a hardware “advantage” as you’ve previously mentioned. This would technically allow an amateur astrophotographer who does not have a taxable income from the hobby etc, to enter all CWAS categories - I'd be happy with that. It will be an interesting exercise to police such activities as the lines becomes blurred. For example, what if I principally acquired data with the short focal length FSQ, but then added 10% luminance from a high-resolution long focal length rental scope to bring out the details thus creating a hybrid image? Tough call to make. Indeed, the years to come will provide even higher quality output. Personally, I think CWAS needs to address this to make it fair (sooner, than later). Actually, I feel it needs to also split DSLR’s to cooled CCD’s, though this margin isn’t as large.

Also, to set the scene, I’m not having a shot at you. I simply would like to ensure there is clarity around this in future at CWAS. So thought I'd voice it, despite being somewhat off topic for this thread.

[Ric]

A big congratulations to all the members who entered for their wins and honourable mentions.

From what I have seen so far they are all excellent images as well as being very inspiring to all imagers. I think David Malin must have had a difficult time in choosing the winner.

I'm looking forward to seeing the traveling exhibition when it comes to Canberra and I get to see them closeup.

Cheers

[Peter Ward]

Jase,

Interesting points...but they have skirted a couple of issues I still have

I still do not agree image processing (IP) is the be all and end all...even for deep sky....that is not say I am right, it's just my point of view/experience.

I steadfastly hold to "GIGO" i.e. garbage in, garbage out. No amount of IP can save tragic data.

A competent deep-sky astrophotographer's skills are many and varied: Nailing Polar alignment, tuning the mount, correctly programming the PEC to avoid seeing noise, collimating the optics, determining the best camera back focus position, determining optimum focus and keeping it there, making sure the mechanics of the system are robust enough for the required exposure etc. and this is before the exposure has even started.

As remote telescope software gets better, a pay per view imaging session doesn't require the end user to do or know about any of the above.

It can be as simple as "slew to NGC5128" "take 10x 20 minute subs"
"download" ...hence we are back to proposition that it ends up being an image processing contest.

To totally even the field, then perhaps contestants will have to use a common raw data set....." 'ere you go lads...go process this" That would be nuts.

I do not envy the CWAS committee's deliberations on how to keep everybody happy, or at least not feel dis-advantaged, but I do know they are aware of the many issues new technology throws up, and try their best to adapt them into their contest rules.

That said, the calibre of winning and honorable mention images was at an all time high.

Once again well done to Martin, yourself and the many others who also did very well, and also those who had the courage to enter.

2009 will be here in the blink of an eye!

[Bassnut]

Congratulations to all winers and place getters, the standard really does improve every year in leaps and bounds.

Re the rent-a-gear issue. I find myself swinging to and fro on this, being involved in both sides. Everytime this comes up new aspects appear.

Peter and Jase both give very convincing arguements, but I think it is just different perspectives that seperate them. The "knowledge" vs "skill" angle is interesting. I would place "skill" as important in the "value" of an image, "knowledge" not so much.

Ironically, the knowledge/skill divide is down to gear cost. With a PME/RCOS combo, with tools such as Pempro and Tpoint, and following manuals to the letter, proper set up is assured, and it stays that way after set up. Thats what you pay for, this is applied knowledge learnt from manuals, not so much a "creative" input.

Setting up a typical Meade/Celestron/EQ6/G11 on the other hand (for a comp entry), requires "skill" and constant tweaking and attention, results vary wildly with the amount of time and intuition applied, this effort is arguably "creative" requiring "skill".

The internet automation/renting aspect is irrelivant, its a technical interface, true, horrendously difficult (that I know for a fact :)), but there is no image quality or creative or gear set up or image capture skill difference between a PME/RCOS/ST11K operated locally or via the internet. If it was set up by the imager, it only requires following manuals, a purely technical endeavour.

So, I would say that with entries that involve top shelf equipment such as the PME, wether its is self/locally set up and operated or rented is irralevent, basic set up is the same and well defined, its right or wrong, no creative input.

Equipement somewhat less than this requires skill that counts in an image evaluation, so Jase and Peter are both correct, some gear requires skill others require just RTFM, in the 1st instance it counts, in the 2nd, not.

Image processing and composition IMO is the real differentiator after the above is considered, so maybe it just gets to gear level, not wether it is rented or not.

[strongmanmike]

Sorry Jase but I have to agree with Peter on this one. Comercially purchased image data from GRAS or LightBuckets is indeed crossing the line in my opinion and is no different to using more traditional "professional" observatory data. Either not allow such data at all or have a seperate category IMO.

If on the other hand it is your own remote setup that you own and organised to install or indeed installed yourself and you are not simply ordering the data ala Maca's then perhaps it's ok but if you are simply ordering on line the data you want so it arrives all neatly packaged then it aint right IMO.

That said and just like SPSP, what ever the rules are I am happy to comply.

All the above doesn't mean I begrudge any of your entries one iota, they were all fantastic and complied with the rules as they presently stand.

Mike

[Bassnut]

Mike

Thats interesting, I know that most (all?) owner remote installations in the SH are set up locally (just buy the gear and ship it), then they "order" images from their gear, where do they stand?. Is there a creative difference between just shiping gear and setting it up themselves?.

[Garyh]

I can understand both sides to this argument and both Peter and Jase have merit in what they say..
I think this will have to be addressed in some way in the CWAS categories as all images are judged blind by David with no knowledge of how the data was acquired and what equipment was used..


I think a good solution would be to put a focal length to each category and maybe split deepsky images into two categories ?
Say.
Widefield is <300mm
Deepsky widefield 300mm to 1200mm
Deepsky Narrowfield <1200mm

This would help bundle setups and scopes that are more similar regardless if acquired via renta scopes or by the owner of the gear..
Also would open up opportunities for the more cash strapped imagers out there with small scopes like the ED80 or similar regardless of ccds or DSLR`s.
cheer Gary

[strongmanmike]

The simple answer is staring us all in the face...ie. any image that uses data from any telescope located at a comercially (an important distinction)operating observatory setup (whether it is your own scope or not) is simply clased as semi-proffesional - easy! Data from a proffessional and/or government research observatory would still be not allowed of course.

Problem solved :thumbsup:...aaaand Peter and Eddie finlly get some real competiton :lol:

Mike

[strongmanmike]

Nah far too messy IMO mate :shrug:. I say keep it as it is and just slip the remote data aquisition into the semi Pro division - easy.

If people like Martin Pugh and others can afford to have their own CCD + image rotator + Adaptive Optics + RC + robotic mount all controlled by CCD autopilot etc then so be it, they are not semi proffessional by trade ie they earn no taxable income per se and they are not just paying for the data direct.

Mike

[Bassnut]

Mike

Sure, I agree, remote installations go in the semi pro catagory, easy solution. I dont know if "commercial" site is realavent, if its in a mates backyard, but it does seem fair, id go with that.

[EddieT]

Hi Mike,

That sounds reasonable and I'm all for it as it applies to rented equipment.

But sheesh, the perceived advantage of being semi-pro has never applied to me. There have been entries by amateurs with far better equipment than me since the first contest I entered (2005). The reason for me being semi-pro and the reason for having a distinction in the categories are two completely different things, from my perspective...

And...if you have any inside info on the absence of any other semi-pro entrants to date, please let me know. As far as I know, Peter and I aren't the only two, just the only two that have won anything....:)

[Peter Ward]

Eddie!

There are three! I Recall the guy from the SMH won with his Venus transit image.

Yet, I know how you feel. As for number of "semi- pro" (odd classification as Eddie is in IT, and I'm a part time amateur astronomer full-time Pilot) entrants, John Sarkissian at CWAS told me it is about a dozen or so.

The fact that Eddie and I have both take the bow in past years might also imply there is a modicum of skill there ;)


Cheers
Peter

[Bassnut]

ummm, so apart from a commercial interest in Astronomy very generally (and obscurley as you point out), what does the catogory "semi pro" imply in regards to image quality?.

[EddieT]

Hi Peter! Congrats on taking me out yet again :) Ha! Ok, I remember the image and the guy, but didn't realise he was semi-pro.


Ok, well that's good to know! I can understand how it could *seem* to people, that we were the only two in that category :)


At least a modicum, we can hope :)

Good to hear from you!

[EddieT]

Hi Fred, how's it going?



The category relates to image quality tenuously, in that semi-pro's are deemed to have some (unquantified) advantage over amateurs.

A semi-pro by (contest) definition is someone who gains a taxable income from some astronomy-related pursuit. I think that's all...

[Bassnut]

Thanks Eddie

"tenuose" to be sure :), it would seem IT and Pilot skills wouldnt necessarily give you an advantage, but I understand the reason for the catagory.

[Peter Ward]

Yep...that's pretty much it....but even then, our SMH guy, being a pro-photographer, was deemed as a "semi-pro" astro-photographer.

All a bit moot really. The images at the end of the day tell the story.

[rally]

Congratulations to all the entrants, all the winners and all the honourable mentions, did I miss anyone (yes - Judges and Organisers and Hosts and sponsors - better not forget spouses and friends) - congratulations to them also !

Another point of view :
As far as the healthy conjecture is concerned, I think the organisers will always have some difficulty with their divisional groupings.
How do we categorise all the food stuffs in a supermarket - there is a million different ways ! (by brand, aisle or shelf height, price, colour, flavour, value, use, quality, safety, efficacy, shelf life . . . )

The Astro playing field is not level and far from static and never will be, their will always be people with $1,000 budgets, those with $10,000 budgets and those with $100,000 budgets, just as their will be people who have different levels of mastery of the imaging and post processing software and have developed their own special techniques and skills.

So budget could be a factor ?
You could split up imaging by film, DSLR and Astro camera
Then split it up by megapixels, cryogenic cooling and 10 other features
Maybe split by manual focussing or electronic, what about temperature compensated.
Then we get to Scopes - aperture, optical design, focal length . . . . . . .
Then by Mounts - hand operated !, mechanical, through to totally robotic and remote controlled etc
Or do we base it on the entrants own level of input into the construction of the equipment used !

Post processing - unprocessed through to some complex algorthm for what PP actually occurred - with much argument !

Its an impossible task to get it perfect and please all parties.

These are all valid and plausible criteria for how it could get grouped - but what a mess it would be.

No matter how it gets arranged there is always the possibility that there could be a minority group who may be unfairly disadvantaged or even advantaged.

I think that it is likely that new classes will be entertained as the community gets more involved and the level of entrants increases and that would be a good thing.
It is also likely that more Subject categories could be created as this would split up the field a little - trying to compare the merits of some of the widely differing entries would also be a difficult task - a bit like comparing the merits of embroidery to software or target shooting to architectural design !


But what is really great about the whole process is the high quality of imaging and the continuing development and expansion of the craft of Astro Imagery.
It is clearly growing and Awards like this help stimulate it and I am sure that is one of the aims of the program.

The Awards were given to the best results as determined by the judges.

But I guess having some clear definitions of what the classes mean and there ranges and limits would be nice, but consider that maybe we should give the judges some latitude so that they may make awards to the best of the images as they see fit ?

Personally I dont see there being a problem with hiring a scope, we could borrow a friend's scope if we wanted and that would be OK. At least everyone is on a level playing field here as nearly everyone can afford $100-200 to do so if they really desired.
After all - It would be prejudicial to those who cant afford or dont want to buy expensive gear that would like to enter such a contest !
But maybe a classification is required - maybe not.

Food for thought anyway.

Cheers

Rally

PS Should a Hubble image be allowed ?
I gues if you paid for the time, was instrumental in its operation and targetting and performed the final processing and it was entered into a suitable category - why not !

Hope I dont need to duck !!

[jase]

Ok. Looks like we’ve reached agreement (or agree to disagree if that makes sense). Like others, I’m fine for rental scope entries to be placed into a new category. This will not be semi pro unless the regulations change. To date, semi pro states the following;

“For the purposes of this competition, semi-professional astrophotographers are deemed to be people who are astronomers, professional photographers, or individuals who gain a taxable income in some way from astronomical or photographic work. Hobbyists who occasionally sell their photographs for a nominal sum, but do not gain a taxable income from their hobby, will be deemed amateurs.”

So as it stands, even if someone buys time on a rental telescope, they are still an amateur no matter which way you look at it. It doesn’t make a difference if it’s a remotely controlled FSQ or a 40” (1 meter class) RC. Equipment is irrelevant; you are still buying time to collect data to process, which obviously a few here have “ethical” problems with. I’m fine with that, each to their own.

I know I'm not alone. Many astrophotoghers such as Gendler, Croman, Schedler (yes, Mike even Johannes amazing M104 (http://panther-observatory.com/gallery/deepsky/doc/M104_F9.htm) image you posted a while back was taken remotely (http://www.ias-observatory.org/)), Block, Crawford, Gabany, Mazlin (to name a few) are using internet controlled telescopes. Do we judge or disregard their work differently because they didn't battle with mosquitoes or monitor the guide star corrections like a hawk during the acquisition process or heaven forbid didn't drift align before starting their imaging run? Sheesh. This is the new world coming of age. Don't get me wrong, its great to get out there with your own gear. Been there, done that and I continue to do so when I get a chance, but I will also continue to endorse internet controlled telescopes and the value they bring.

The use of such facilities are only going to increase, so it’s a case of adopting new technologies as Peter put it in a previous post. Competition policies need to be dynamic to accept such changes. They should also not convolute what is amateur and professional along with performing hybrid imaging. It will be interesting to see how the competition guidelines will address this. I don't think its that easy...as per my example of hybrid imaging mentioned in a previous post. Interesting times ahead...

[skeltz]

In my opinion i would like to think that basically to keep things straightforward it should be no :1 completely with your own astro gear,and various categories
No 2 another section for remote images,and another with dslr,s with their native lenses for the ultrawidefield this is of course a very rough guideline but you get what i am on about.Having said that,
If you all force your opinions to much ..canon might say...competition only open to dslr,s???+....yes it is a virtual pandoras box,lets just leave it as a competion and let the powers that be worry about the rules and categories be???? foood for thought?

[Martin Pugh]

Hi all....a very interesting thread..and if I may add my 10c.

For me, it is unfortunate that David does not consider equipment used, time spent, effort levied, prevailing conditions (i.e object never above 30 degrees altitude) when judging the competition.

I am certainly in favour of the 'all own work' scenario. It was late 1999 when I started imaging with an LX200 classic and a Starlight Express HX916. From then until around Jun 05, I was completely unproductive....finding my way, learning from a multitude of mistakes, set up errors, mastering polar alignment..you name it, with no local help at all (I lived in Belgium and Portugal for a total of 4.5 years with only the excellent help available from the internet forums and groups). I even remember calling Adam Block at Kitt Peak to discuss my damn LX200...because he was the master of the 16" there at the time. My learning curve continued as I improved my skills, having to do with inadequate equipment, terrible weather conditions, portable set ups and the list goes on...not to mention the absolute dreadful track record I have when purchasing equipment (every single piece of kit I have bought from the US has either been broken, inoperative, incomplete or the incorrect item). I upgraded to Tak equipment (mount and scope), got a better camera (my first SBIG ST8E), and then my final purchase (having sold all the Tak gear) was the PME, RC and STL11K. Meanwhile, I was practicing every single aspect of this great hobby, and kept rather scary levels of detail in terms of setup and configuration procedures (for every single piece of kit I owned), acquisition best practice, processing hints and tips...not to mention the 4 months solid work it took me to master the AOL on this particular set up.
Then I moved to Australia in Oct 04 but did not establish a static observatory until May 05 when I purchased my property in Yass. Thus, everything on my website has been produced in 3 short years but there is not a single night that goes by where I have to go and tweak something, fix something or I am having to throw data away, still competing with less than average environmental conditions.

So to come away as the overall winner gives me exceptional satisfaction, and that indeed it has been all my own work, with huge amounts of effort in the background mixed with tons of disappointment.

Finally, I hope the competition organisers are able to sort it out...it has to be fair at the end of the day.

thanks again to all those who have commented.

cheers
Martin

[EddieT]

The bottom line for me on the rules issue, is that I'm happy to be nothing more than a participant.

I trust David, John and the organisers have everyone's best interests in mind when they ammend the contest guidelines from year to year and are fully aware that they can't please everyone...

As a participant, I have no problem with abiding by whatever rules they stipulate, even if they don't particularly suit me personally.

[EddieT]

Hi Martin,
You're attention to detail really shows. I've seen some of the images you ended up discarding :) You also have some pretty good skies there. Spending as much time on one object as I get clear skies in a quarter!

Congrats again on all of your work, even if it's only 3 years worth :)...

[strongmanmike]

Your trials and tribulations sound pretty familiar Martin :doh:...but like you say the recognition of our images by the worlds most respected astrophotographer is pretty satisfying huh? :thumbsup:...not to mention that beeeeeeeeautiful bust of Galilleo you now have sittin on ya mantle :eyepop:

How anyone will be able to touch you next year with the new FLI16803 and FSQ106 is frankly beyond me :help::scared2: SBIG and Peter will be fuming :rofl:

[iceman]

An update from John Sarkissian:

[anthony.tony]

Some pics of sunday at the dish .The raffle draw.Peter Wards Talk. Tony

[Martin Pugh]

Hi Mike

I have to say, the Galileo bust does look really good.

I am v.excited about the FLI Proline 16803 purchase, and I shall take delivery (hopefully) a week on Friday with the CFW5-7 and a full array of filters, including NB. The FOV is going to be awesome.....just wish I had the new FSQ and the dedicated f3.4 reducer...that would be a blast...but I will settle for f5 and a FOV of 250 arcmins square. 4 x 20lb counterweights are now not enough to balance the PME with the RC/FSQ combination, which will also have a BORG 76ED and Orion Starshooter attached to guide the RC when imaging with the FSQ. So I am having to consider a larger 40lb weight and some other alternatives. Can you believe that a 40lb weight made from stainless steel is $650US plus $250 shipping! Whose idea was this.

cheers
Martin

[strongmanmike]

That kit sonds awesome mate (and expensive:scared:)

I guess your success at SPSP and now the David Malin Awards has netted you some new found and welcomed cooperation from Karen when it comes to saying "err? darling, I've got this thing I want to buy...."? I remember after my past two DM wins my wife was pretty agreeable ...at least for a while :lol:

Mike

[Martin Pugh]

You dont know how true that is right now.

cheers
Martin

[jase]

Perhaps strike while the iron is hot, buy some telescope time.:P Oh, wait... that would an unfair advantage.:lol:;)

[Peter Ward]

I'm actually in South Africa now. Not fuming at all, overall winner used an SBIG (again, well done Martin) , as did the semi-pro winner, and we picked up a few honorable mentions (plus I got to pet some lion cubs today...bugger the CCD stuff.... these not so little guys are very cool) . All good :)

There is some great gear available these days, with FLI SBIG and Apogee all making great stuff.... it's a bit like Merc, BMW and Rolls.....but, I'm hanging out for the new STX series from SBIG ;)

Peter

[[1ponders]]

Thanks for a really fascinating read guys, thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd like to ask a qualifying question though in relation to Semi-pro.



I gather this would also include someone who wanted to enter an item and receives a taxable income from teaching astronomy or sells gear (ie the lads from Bintel or Steve from Myastroshop) for example?

[jase]

Rather thought provoking Paul...I’m not a qualified person to answer your qualified question, so what I’m about to say is unqualified. It would certainly be good to get an official response from the CWAS committee on this amongst other items raised in this post. If you take the reseller path, they are running a business importing telescope goods so plainly semi-pro would fit given the taxable income condition, though many are still amateurs! However there is some emphasis placed on individuals – maybe the condition changes if you are part of a greater business or sole proprietor. I guess the semi pro advantage stems from a reseller buying high end gear and claiming it is used for astronomical testing of products which are part of the business operations, thus they can depreciate the gear over time. As I understand it, if you obtain a taxable income from teaching astronomy or developing astronomy software, the semi-pro condition would also apply. If the time I've purchased on rental scopes was a cost I could claim, I’d be a happy chap. Selling a couple of prints a year is hardly a taxable income to offset the costs, thus the cost of telescope time comes out of my own pocket 100%...So who’s disadvantaged?

Clearly, these rules need to change so they reflect the different scenarios accurately. I trust that CWAS organisers will provide clarity around the semi-pro category and will be visionary in that they will embrace remote imaging instead of making it outcast. It’s only going to increase. If we take the S&T Beautiful Universe competition in which David Malin was also a judge, there was no “classy remote imaging”, semi professional category or even amateur! Everyone was in together based on target categories, galaxies, nebulae, solar system. Hmmm, food for thought.

[wavelandscott]

Congratulations to the winners and participants!

What a wonderful thread to read...although I have no involvement or particular interest in Astrophotography other than as one who likes to admire it I have enjoyed reading the thread an the different points of view expressed...in an even tempered and rationale way...maybe a first for the internet!

All of those who submitted material to the competition and also to this thread help educate and enrich the hobby in my opinion and have added to my enjoyment of it.

Well Done All!

[GrahamL]

passion should never be judged by another !!!,,To me the need to complicate everything is a waste of tme

[Alchemy]

I notice a certain amount of discussion regarding the use of remote imaging.

as someone who was poked at, in another sport for using breaking technology equipment (note that 20 years later over 50% of participants use this gear) i think new methods should be embraced and not discouraged, you may find that in 20 years it will be the most common method of imaging , with 80% of the Western world living in crowded light polluted cities.... who knows. i personlly have not used it, maybee never will but for those who want to use it .... go for it.

As for the Malin Images, if new rules are to be created to allow a section for this, im sure the organisers will take it into due consideration.

[Peter Ward]

What is the purpose of an astronomical imaging contest?

I’ve mulled over this for a time and think the answer is simply to provide recognition for the imaging skills of astrophotographers. I suspect judging takes into account 1) various technical aspects of gathering the data and 2) showcasing the intrinsic beauty or features of the object in question.

Point 2) is essential.... Much can be gleaned from traditional daylight photography and compositional techniques. Images need to be interesting, captivating and draw the viewer in for a closer look.

Point 1) raises a lot of questions about equipment.

But it is simply not the case he/she with the best gear wins.

To be sure, not having to fight your imaging equipment to capture data helps, but knowing how to effectively use what you have is essential to getting great data to create your next astronomical masterpiece.

....and there is the rub for pay per kilobyte imaging. In time, Internet based software will allow the downloading of perfect data without the user having to know one end of a telescope from another.

You will still have to be a photoshop artisan....but you’re not confronted with having to make a silk purse from a sows ear.. as happens all to frequently off-the-shelf
(and often expensive) equipment. Just buying data does nothing to indicate an astrophotographers skill prior to an exposure.

I believe it is a bit like getting Ansel Adams (or even Helmut Newton ;) ) to set up the web-camera/tripod/lights, you log on and click “expose”. Clearly some amazing images can be captured thus...and perhaps a forum should also be given to such images (and in many ways, already is, with works of Gendler, GaBany et al. in S&T etc.)

But in so far as a contest goes, “all my own work” is the only fair model.

It does not stop anyone savvy enough to set up their own remote imaging telescope (seriously hard-core! ) but does draw a line in the sand as to what is considered a real and fair test of an individual’s imaging skill and what is not.

[strongmanmike]

I agree with you 100% Peter.

I would however think it quite appropriate if entries that used remotely gathered and purchased data from a comercially (proffessionally) operating observatory was simply incorporated in the semi proffessional section for now, after all, that is exactly what they are.

Mike

[Alchemy]

As a point of discussion perhaps that means i ground my own mirror and made my own mount.

Most of us have already paid someone elses skill to make our equipment , some more than others.(refering more to the deep sky catagory)




i think it was this year. (note i am not denigrating martins expertise and time spent aquiring the work)


A real contest of skills would be all participants using the same gear ..... this debate could go on for ever without any conclusion.......
Congratulations to all who entered and even more to those whose images were specially recognised and awarded.

[jase]

I’m not too certain of what is taken into account Peter. I’d like to hope you’re correct in that your two points mentioned are considered. However, I have my doubts. You are typically judged on the finished product (your point 2), not the journey in getting there. Thus, how you reached the result is of little consequence, whether it is imaged locally or remotely… and is it really anyone’s business to know where the data was collected. All you are asked is the type of telescope used, exposure times, processing tools.

I feel Martin nailed it in his opening statement “For me, it is unfortunate that David does not consider equipment used, time spent, effort levied, prevailing conditions (i.e object never above 30 degrees altitude) when judging the competition.” Hmmm interesting. Do you think David realised the trouble I went to in the NGC6357 & NGC6334 photo considering I took data from two different focal lengths (FSQ & TOA-150), struggling with equipment (taken locally I should add) and spent another ~12 hours processing the image? If it’s measured on various technical aspects of data collection, then surely Eddie’s Eta mosaic would have came out as the overall winner. It is clear that the end result is all that counts.

We can debate the use of rental scopes all day long. There is undoubtedly a stigma around using such services which to be blatantly honest amuses me. Remote rental facilities aren’t exclusive; anyone can buy time on them so I’d question the advantage one imager has over another. After all, everyone has access to the equipment. It’s their choice should they choose to utilise the facilities. Sure, affordability maybe a limiting factor, however so is that next generation large format CCD camera or 6” APO that has the potential to lift an imagers output quality and provide the so-called distinct advantage claims being made here about remote imaging. Cost validation is identical in both circumstances so it’s a mute point – there are no advantages. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else collecting hi resolution luminance data on a rental scope and combining with RGB they’ve collected on their own scope. It’s about making use of the technologies at hand to deliver an end result that the imager is proud to display – rental scope or not.

Don't mix commercial with professional Mike. The two don't always correlate. Its the use of data which often determines whether its professional or not.

[jase]

Clive makes a valid point. Making your own equipment is the true "all my own work" model, so who are we kidding? This would have to be the other end of the extreme to remote imaging. Hmmm interesting thought.

[Peter Ward]

Last time I checked, nobody who entered any photo comp had built their own DSLR or CCD chip foundry.... there are limits :)

I believe using someone else's expertise for instrument set-up is another.
As to how CWAS address this (eg separate division) remains to be seen.

[anthony.tony]

Some more pics of The Astrofest . Tony

[strongmanmike]

Naaaaaeeeh, sorry, somehow I just can't accept that purchasing data from a remote scope that ain't yours "by order" off the internet that you did nothing to help acquire, just ain't normal amateur imaging. While I think it is a great ability and incredible service the practise deffinitely needs at least special consideration in an imaging contest.

Mike

[Screwdriverone]

Hi All,

After reading all the posts in this thread I am not sure if the real purpose or tradition of the "David Malin Awards" has been forgotten? That is, if I understand the competition correctly (correct me if I am wrong).

Surely these awards are won by astrophotographs taken by people and submitted to the competition to be personally judged by: wait for it: Dr David Malin!?

If Dr Malin decided that a picture of a sparkler attached to a tree by a cable tie in front of a night sky was good enough to win the competition, surely isnt that enough?

I always thought that a competition was just that, a contest where the end result is looked at by a judge and then that judge makes a subjective decision, end of story.

Whilst I can understand the reasoning behind all points of view here, I dont think it should come down to comparison of equipment, processing, difficulty or who has the bigger setup or bank balance to support such photos. If the issue is what is professional or semi-pro compared to owner or renter etc, what does that matter? Doesn't overclassification just make the whole process too complicated, clinical and robotic?

I am pretty sure that with some experimentation and practice, I could probably mount my 35year old SLR film camera on a tripod, take a long exposure of the night sky and enter the contest with a photo that might just win a prize in the contest....

If Dr David Malin liked the photo, that is.........

Just my thoughts.

Chris

[skeltz]

Yes exactly............................ ...no less or more need be said
rob

[anthony.tony]

Remember despite all the Pro's and Con's about how Images should be judged and the Types of Categories.The Winners Images Travel from Parkes to Mount Stromlo - Sydney Observatory and many other places to viewed by the general Public .That's got to be good Advertising for the Winners.Plus David Malin Would be the Best Astrophotographer of his time so it should be considered an Honour to have David judge and choose your image in this competition.David Malin pioneered a lot of the processing Techniques we use today.Reguard's Tony

[Rob_K]

Yes, I think I agree that ultimately it should be the photo, and the last thing I’d like to see is a ‘level playing field’ where through the creation of obscure categories my sad photos had as much chance of picking up an award or honourable mention as, say, Strongmanmike’s. A comp is a comp and the organisers set the rules. You enter or you don’t. The comp will live or die as Australia’s premier amateur astrophotography awards according to the strength of the entries, which is something the organisers do need to be aware of in setting the rules. But it seems to be doing pretty well at the moment, and time will tell as to its continued ranking.

I must say I was a bit surprised to learn that Dr Malin is the sole judge (for some reason I thought the awards were judged by a panel and named in honour of Dr Malin), but again, even if it is just ‘excellence’ seen through the eyes of one man, so be it.

Well done to all the winners & honourable mentions! :thumbsup:

Cheers -