The Top 10 Best Astrophotographers in Australia

[iceman]

Australia has some very very talented amateur astrophotographers, producing images that are among the best in the world. Our beautiful dark skies, combined with the stunning objects visible in the Southern Hemisphere, give Australian Astrophotographers a bountiful choice of targets on which to produce their inspiring work.

I wanted to feature and profile these brilliant individuals and showcase their best or their favourite images by compiling my Top 10 Best Astrophotographers in Australia.

Please click the link to find out the criteria I used for selection, to see who made the top 10, and to be blown away by their fabulous astrophotography.

The Top 10 Best Astrophotographers in Australia (http://www.mikesalway.com.au/2009/04/16/the-top-10-best-astrophotographers-in-australia)

Thanks!

[toryglen-boy]

Thanks for that Mike, some stunning images. I will congratulate Steve Crouch tonight when i see him at the CAS meeting, only last month he gave an introduction to Astrophotography lecture to some potential members, and it went down very well.

I dont know all the names on there, although some i recognize, but what cant be doubted is the undeniable talent on there ...

and yet ... i have seen a few names that i am surprised havent been included, infact several of the members on here who image could be worthy of a mention, namely some "big hitters" down in Adelaide, to mention a few.


thanks for posting.


;)

[cruiser]

Thanks for that Mike,

That is a fantastic article and I'm glad to see you put yourself in that list.
As a beginner taking mainly wide field images I find it very inspiring to see the work being done by others, especially Aussies.

Brett

[rogerg]

Nice summary of some great astorphotographers :thumbsup:

[Terry B]

Interesting list. Did you only include amateurs. ie no David Malin?

[leinad]

For some reason my name's not in there?
:P:D

[bloodhound31]

We sure have been blessed with some talent here in the land down under.

[Matty P]

Amazing talent we have here. :) It's inspirational for us beginners to see what can be achieved.

Thanks Mike. :thumbsup:

[Lester]

Yep there is some very talented chaps in that list.

Will read it right through when I get time, thanks Mike.

[Robh]

Mike,
Don't know much about astrophotography but the images you've showcased here are extraordinary. Like art, you can appreciate it without being an artist.
All credit to you for daring to list a top ten.
Interesting dilemma including yourself!
Great work, Rob.

[Octane]

Mike,

Some excellent stuff in there, and, I think you've captured the main contenders quite well.

Regards,
Humayun

[dugnsuz]

An inspirational mob for sure!
Great to see EddieT up there - that HaRGB Eta Neb widefield of his is an amazing piece of work.
Doug

[avandonk]

Interesting list.

Bert

[iceman]

Hi Terry.
Yes, I only considered "amateurs" and also as the criteria mentioned, should be "active".

David Malin hasn't produced any new images for a long time (with the exception of reprocessing old data).

Brad Moore (another brilliant amateur) wasn't included in the list because the latest image of his I could find was from 2006.

[toryglen-boy]

maybe a showcase of IIS members would be in order, based on a similar pattern?

i offer my submission


;)


IC666 - The Vomitting Goldfish Nebula

[marki]

I can see a little colour noise around the centre of your fine image Duncan which, if you clean it up it will make this an outstanding image :P:D.

Although I am not familiar with all those on the list I think you have made some good choices Mike. Some of the work posted by Peter, strongman Mike, Jason and Greg in the deep space images forum are first class examples of what can be done if you know what you are doing.

Mark

[White Rabbit]

I can’t believe that my picture of the half moon taken with my girlfriends Nokia N73 held up to the eyepiece never made the list, I'm quite offended. ;)

On a more serious note thought there are some stunning pictures in that list. Inspiration for a newb like myself. The curve is steep and you appreciate the effort these guys go to all the more when you realise just how steep the curve really is.

Well done all.

Sandy

[PCH]

Those are fabulous choices - both imagers and images.

Some of those images leave me quite breathless. I just love the good old HH, but they are all absolutely superb.

As others have stated, - it must have been so difficult to limit it to just 10. I'd imageine you could have include another half dozen or so very easily.

A great thread - immensely enjoyable :thumbsup:

[Quark]

Top idea Mike,

Some truly extraordinary images and imagers showcased from this group.

Cheers
Trevor

[multiweb]

Very cool compilation. :thumbsup: Now I know where to go to get some reference material and tips :)

[atalas]

Congrats to all!top work guy's.

[Ric]

That's an excellent list Mike and all that are on it deserve to be there.

Cheers

[matt]

That's a list of very fine imagers....

Although I'm not a fan of these sorts of things. I think they are, by their very nature, subjective and frought.

Congrats to those on the list, though. Few would argue most if not all of you deserve this type of recognition:thumbsup:

[nightsky]

G'Day,
Thanks Mike,great photo's,love to frame all of them and have them hanging
in the lounge. :thumbsup:
Cheers
Arthur

[Jen]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:
There is some very awsome pics there :love::love: they make me so jealous :doh:
And most of them websites i already had saved in my favourites too :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Also a few months ago i purchased two beautiful prints from Martin Pugh :D they are just beautifullllllllllllllllllllll :2thumbs:
:bowdown::bowdown:

[KenGee]

Great another post of StrongmanMikes Cent A, stop encouraging him Mike. I generally don't like these types of list (maybe it's cause I never seem to get on them LOL) but it’s great to see these people work show cased by their peers.

[Robh]

I've already said my piece on the top ten. Great work!

But I have another thought ...

IIS has an Image of the Week.
I wonder if we could hold an annual IIS Astrophotographer of the Year award, held at the end of each year. A thread could be created say on Jan 1st where members could vote on the 52 images from the previous year. Voting would close exactly one week later. Each member gets one vote. It appears we already have the facility to do this, as seen by the various polls in the forums.
IIS has a large membership so the award in itself would be prestigious.
Just a thought.
:camera:
Regards, Rob.

[strongmanmike]

So, don't like A good picture of Centaurs, hey..?

For the Ladies:
http://superawesomeguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cowboycentaur.jpg

For the Gentlemen:
http://www.amuzant.ro/uploadedpics/580214female-centaur.jpg

Ooops...who's digressing again...? :whistle:

Mikeaurus A

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol: nice pics Mike :lol:

[Robh]

Apologies for the multiple posts. Unresponsive computer or phone line. Didn't seem to send so I clicked on the button a few times.
Deleted the other 2 or was it 3?
Rob

[KenGee]

Strongmanmike that first one looks like a gelding. on ya mate

[iceman]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback, I'm glad you enjoyed the article.



Absolutely - there's nothing "official" about my list - it is my opinion and it's completely subjective. I have no doubt that anyone else doing their own top 10 may come up with different names or put them in a different order.

Like Matt says, lists like this can also be controversial because people will always disagree or get upset about themselves or their friends or their favourite imager not being on the list or not being ranked higher.

I stated the criteria I used and I picked the people based on that criteria. I could've shuffled the order myself, and did so many times over before coming up with my top 10. In fact as you can see I couldn't limit to 10, and included profiles of 15 and even included links to 5 others that were considered and whose work I admire but didn't make my final list.

The article is meant to profile the imagers and showcase their work, and generate some discussion. And it's done that.

[PeterM]

Hi Mike
A fantastic list of imagers who in my opinion are not just fine imagers but artists. There are many other fine imagers in Australia as we all know. All are presenting the rest of us with not only beautiful images but also detail in familiar objects (ie eta Carina / Orion nebula) which we have never seen/noticed before and far southern objects so often overlooked in the past (ie NGC5189 in Musca). Your images are of such a high standard and quality that I would like to see our planetariums hanging them with pride in their foyers / display areas in place of dated, non australian, fading images from years ago. I will be asking our local planetarium about this. This would be a just reward to the talents that we have in Australia and inspiration to a greater audience - the general public. Aspiring amateur astronomers visiting the planetariums would also see what is achievable with skill and knowledge. This could form part of the inspiration for the next generation of astro artists.
My congratulations to all mentioned in the list and all the other fine imagers in Australia.
PeterM.

[TrevorW]

Yes this is one mans opinion and I admire your honesty although personally I'd refrain by including my own name in the list

Yes they are all good imager's however I'd prefer a list based on the judgement of more than one person yet I agree with your criteria for those included on this list.

[Ric]

I am happy that Mike did include himself on this list Trevor, his Jupiter imagery is simply stunning and was the first time that I saw details on Jupiters moons from a Earth based telescope.

Cheers

[Enchilada]

Damn right! :thumbsup:
However, picking a Top Ten leaves too many out for my liking !!

How do you assess someone who has zillions of dollars with the best equipment available with all the trimmings against someone who struggles to get the pieces together on a shoe-string budget to produce his or her images? Also just how do you separate what images you take?
I can name at least thirty of merit without even hesitating.

Sorry TEN in number is far too little for me - but one things for sure - they are better than an old decrepit visual observer like me...

Give 'em all equal praise, I say! :thumbsup:

(If you really must, probably, Joe Cauchi of the ASNSWI would be certainly be in the top echelon - and he been doing it persistently and brilliantly since the early 1980s!)

[bloodhound31]

How about top ten imagers of a particular object with a particular camera with a particular scope with a particular mount with a particular level of light pollution, blah blah blah.

I agree with you in part, that maybe it would be fairer to pick a unifying subject, then judge the best possible photograph of it, but there are just so many variables that make it unfair with everything else involved in capture I'm not sure it can be done.

[Enchilada]

Mike S. really love your honoured list, but I can at least think of another ten or so just off the top of my head, and they would equal if not exceed the stellar cast you have made!
This is worse, because I'm only a humble experienced visual observer!

Should we just produce a "Roll of Honour" on some webpage with the whole depth of amateur imagers in alphabetical order!

A least we would not neglect ALL our many wonderful, past and present, "astro-clickers" !!

[iceman]

Budget and equipment wasn't considered.
Someone else is welcome to write their own "Top 10 best astrophotographers using equipment less than $5000".

I could easily have named another 20, 30, 40. Once you get down from the very top tier, there's many many fine astrophotographers ALL producing very fine work worthy of showcasing.



Sure, go ahead! Anyone is welcome to do that.

On my personal site, my list is a subjective, personal list. Some people have complained or got upset because they're not on it, or their friend isn't on it. It's my opinion, and everyone will have their own.

My objective was to list my favourite astrophotographers in Australia. I stated my criteria and I produced my list.

Should I have included myself on the list? Who knows. In my original version I didn't, but as I said in the text, when basing it on my criteria (including awards, achievements, publications, respect, influence, etc), it seemed "fair". But it still felt strange.

Funny though, I noticed on another forum someone saying that "prudence" suggests one should not have included themselves. But then in the same topic thread on a different forum, that same person includes themselves in a list of top planetary imagers running close on Damian Peach's heels. :shrug:

[Robh]

Abraham Lincoln once said that you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

:thumbsup:
Regards, Rob.

[Robert9]

Great idea to give well earned credit for some phenomenal work by brilliant Aussie astrophotographers. A great choice Mike.
I was a little surprised not to find an image of eta Carina; but then, there are no images presented that I would choose not to have!
Robert

[PCH]

Just a a matter of interest Rob, as far as I can tell, the quote was 'you can fool some of the people etc etc ...'. But it often gets changed to the 'please' variety.

Both are equally true though imho. ;)

Hope you don't mind me offering this correction :)

[Robh]

Thanks Paul, I actually like his original version better. But not in the context of this thread.
Never realized the double usage.
Regards, Rob.

[ausastronomer]

Funnily enough Joe Cauchi has probably forgotten more about astrophotography than a couple on the top 20 list will ever learn, IMO. In addition, Joe was one of the "WORLD'S BEST" amateur astrophotographers when being a good astrophotographer required you to know a lot about astronomy and a lot about photography. Joe is one of the all time best ever IMO. There are also a couple of other excellent astrophotographers around that would make the list, but they go unheard of and unnoticed because they don't seek internet fame and recognition for their work.

Cheers,
John B

[Paul Haese]

I feel I have to respond here. What I have to say will no doubt ruffle some feathers but I think this needs to be said. I am not doing this to cause trouble, just I want to respond to this comment. It is not my intention to cause trouble.

That would be me you are quoting here Mike. I said this because, in the eyes of many you are not in the top ten astroimagers in Australia. You inferred that you knew this yourself. There is no doubt that your articles and talks have helped many. Your work of the last two years has been solid but certainly not as good as some, that includes Solar, Lunar, Deep Space and Planetary. That is the reason I said prudence would suggest that you not include yourself.

I did include myself in the top ten of planetary imagers because my images are of such detail and have been commented upon by many respected imagers including Damian himself. I have no qualms about including myself in the top ten planetary imagers, but this is based on my results in the last two years. Those that beg to differ are more than welcome to visit my site http://paulhaese.net and compare for themselves.

In terms of the top ten Australian astrophotographers (this is a broad term, it may well include many aspects of the hobby), well who knows. Probably not. As many have said there are many people who are far better than a lot of people on your list but never even got mentioned. Not having website, or being published makes it hard to know about them. You said this much yourself. Additionally do you say for one field, for a variety of fields or do you say as an all rounder. The definition of Astrophotographer is difficult. Or should it be by what sort of equipment one owns?

You are right it is your list and your criteria. Awards and publications are one thing I suppose, but not all people publicise their awards and publications. For some it does not matter. I personally have been published well over 30 times but could not care less what the exact number is or with which publication. It is just not that important in the scheme of things. What matters to me is quality in terms of images, not in quantity or frequency of being published.

I hope this is not seen as an argumentative thing, I just wanted to reply to your remarks. I guess we will have to agree to disagree in this matter.

[Virgs]

Most of this could have been avoided if the title of the thread read "My top 10 list of Australian Astrophotographers", then it would have been clear from the outset it was Mikes personal opinion from the start. Those that did take the time out to read the criteria would have realised that it was his list as determied by him and that it had no real weight behind it. What I understand is that people on cloudy nights and here took offence that the title as it was worded implied that this was some how an official list or should be thought of as such - even though he does state clearly the criteria used. Then by adding yourself to the list even though you meet your own criteria was probably a mistake in hindsight becuse when these types of things are compiled never does the author put themselves on it and it gets interpretted as endless self promotion - rightly or wrongly. It would have been different if the list was compiled by a group and they had included Mike or if it was the result of a poll etc etc. Anyway this is all a moot point because it was meant to showcase Australian Astrophotography to the folks on cloudy nights and it has done that it is a pity that all this negative discussion could have been so easily avoided with a simple change to the title. Just my view on things...

[strongmanmike]

Have to agree with you on that one John, Joe is a mostly silent acheiver so just slipped under Mikes Radar I am sure.

Here's an analogy (and not directed at your post John but the issue at hand in general): There are many gifted strength athletes out there who seldom if ever compete, or appear on TV or in Newspapers, so very few people know just how strong and fast or agile they really are. When I was competing in national and international strongman contests between 1995 and 2004 I actually made second place in "Australia's Strongest Man" contest (winged it I think? ;)) at The Royal Melbourne Show. Even so, I was very clear that I simply finished second in that particular contest between 10 talented strength athletes from various national strength sports (Track and Field, Weight lifting, Powerlifting, bodybulidng etc) from around Australia. I think the contest organisers just felt that a contest title "Who of these 10 strength athletes from around Australia are the best in these 12 events" sounded pretty boring :lol: so they sensationalised it a tad to grab attention. To believe that I had the absolute penultimate strength level in the country simply because I finished second in that particular contest would have made me a sad deluded beef cake :P.

So it is with Mikes list. Mikes list is by no means deffinitive and he has said this pretty clearly...I am flatterd that he holds my work (and bribes) in such high regard though.

It has generated a bit of interest at least so not all bad :thumbsup:

Been an interesting discussion :)

Mike

[TrevorW]

Hey Mike

I won't argue with YOU on that one (I've seen a photo)

Cheers

[Octane]

Yeah, I was surprised i didn't see my name at #1 on the list.

Forget the SBIG's, FLI's, StarlightXpress's -- bring on the old 350D!

Can you do this list again in twelve months time, Mike? :P

Regards,
Humayun

[PeterM]

There is no doubt that 15 names on Mikes list does not by anymeans cover all the fine astro imagers in Australia. BUT his list does showcase 15 of our best, please lets not take anything away from that.
I am not an astroimager as such, but I do like what I see on Mikes list -stunning images, that to me rank up there with the best I have seen. I applaud those who deliberately go to the trouble of making their images available to a wider audience as in IIS or the Malin awards or society websites.
There are some Qld names that come to mind like Zac Pujic, Greg Bond, Michael Horn, David Rigley, Max Kilmister, Greg Bock and of course the late great Erwin Vandervelden (and many others) who in my opinion would be on any list of fine imagers. There will be many more from each state. Maybe we need a state of origin top 10. 20 list....hmmm.
Mike should be in his list, he has shown what can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time. His recent images of Jupiter are stunning indeed.
So if as it now seems, other astro chat groups around the world are now looking at this "arguable" list of names then they will be seeing the names and works of other top notch Australian imagers. Surely that is a good thing.
I think we have pulled off a bit of a coup here and wonder how long it will be before other chat groups start lists?
Again, to all of you whether on Mikes list or not, whether a gazillion dollars in equipment or not, congratulations you deserve any accolades!
PeterM.

[Peter Ward]

Up to now I've stayed out of this interesting discussion simply to keep a low profile.

However the point has been raised a few times now, with the argument being "he with the best toys wins" .

My take on that? "bollocks!" :)

I have consistently used some very basic and not too expensive gear (eg. DSLR and triopd and not much else) to good effect, indeed some of my best images use nothing more than a good camera/lens on a tracking mount or tripod.

Simply walking out into your back yard and taking a quick time exposure (roof tops and all) is a great recipe for a boring image IMHO (unless ET just landed).

Finding a great landscape to frame a celestial event takes effort....yet it amazes me how few make that effort.

This also extends to planetary imagers who get up in the wee small hours to capture great seeing. Deep sky imagers who dedicate hours of data over multiple nights for just one object. Image processing technicians who spend hours tweaking their data to extract all information possible.

While Mike's list may have been esoteric, maybe even brave, he certainly has a sound understanding of the sheer effort many "pretty astro-pictures" require and kudos to him for giving a little recognition to a pretty esoteric pursuit in this IYA :)

[Enchilada]

Exactly right. It is artistry over over conformity. Pushing the envelope of mind an soul means more in "quality" than just following everyone else. (Like taking the ten millionth picture of a "perfect" M42 / Orion nebula pic! What IS the point?)
IMO far more than ten people do that in Australia.
In the end it is like being an art critic compared to, say, someone who has perfect level of technical excellent and has absolutely no idea of what some image means or portrays.
The difference is between just clicking the shutter or actually formulating some unique masterpiece.
The real problem with amateur imaging in Australia, IMO, we have an overabundance quality artisans! Separating them is like separating again the ingredients of some "Michelin star's" own cooking delicacy. You cannot do it...

The final results is really just as it is! :D

[Octane]

If you want to go down that route, why do anything?

The point is to do it for yourself. To see if you're capable. To see if you can stretch the equipment that you have to its limits. To do it for yourself, not for other people.

We could all do no imaging and just sit back and view Rob Gendler's masterpieces over and over again, but, then, what would be the point in that?

I'd like to think that I have something to aspire to.

[marki]

I find some of the comments in this thread a little curious. Everyone seems to be able to reel off a list of great astrophotographers not on the list but also suggest that many of these people do not publish or make their images known except to a select few. if the images are not in the lime light how can one include it on a list? Perhaps Mike should have called it the top ten astrophotographers posting on IIS:shrug:.

Mark

[Bloodbean]

Excellent read thanks Mike! Some truly stunning images taken. :)

Troy

[iceman]

More interesting discussions :)


There are many, many top-level planetary imagers whose work is equal to and at times better than yours, mine, Anthony's and others in your circle of friends that you list. You just need to look at Fabio Plocos (http://cyberplocos.multiply.com/), Dario Pires (http://www.techs.com.br/users/dariopires/destaque/destindex.htm), Alan Friedman (http://www.avertedimagination.com/) and many many more outside a closed circle to find other people doing exceptional planetary imaging. Even in Australia, people like Zac Pujic, Maurice Valimberti and Stephen Buda have been producing quality planetary images for years before you or I were.

It's clear to most people at the top level that their skill levels are all very equal, and he/she who gets the best seeing gets the best images.
There would be literally a hundred or more people who have an excellent foundation of capturing and processing planetary images, including collimation, temperature control, focus, capture settings and image processing. Then it just comes down to getting the best seeing.
Of course there's slight differences in technique, particularly processing and some do that better than others, but it's a very level playing field at the top level.

So "prudence" would suggest some humility before assertion.


I'm not sure what your point is - you're just re-iterating what I've already said.
I've already stated my criteria and what was and wasn't taken into account. You or anyone else is free at any time to state your own criteria and name your own list.



Sorry but this is incorrect - it was one person who signed up anonymously at CN to criticise it.
The title is the title. There's nothing official about it and if people bothered to read the article, on at least 4 separate occassions it states that it's my personal opinion.
Mike's analogy with his strongman efforts are a good example.
Also, on TV when you see shows titled "World's Greatest Commercials", do you actually think that's some official list put together by some world TV commercial classification body? Or do you think it's just put together by some producer?



Quite right - I missed including Joe; he definitely would've made my list. I'm a big fan of his work and have seen it win many awards at SPSP competitions.



It's certainly more difficult to find the great photography if you don't see it posted anywhere. Many great astrophotographers in Australia keep their work to themselves and simply print it out for their wall at home.
However in my list, I certainly didn't restrict myself by looking simply at members of IceInSpace. Steve Crouch, for example, is not a member of IceInSpace and is easily one of Australia's top astrophotographers.
It just so happens that the majority of who I consider top astrophotographers are or have been active members of IceInSpace. That doesn't mean my list was biased. IceInSpace has a very large reach in Australia so it's expected.

I knew the list would be controversial, and as Peter said, it was a brave move posting it. But that's what I started my personal blog for - to post my personal opinions.

The article was meant to highlight the great photography we do in Australia (many people on overseas forums have seen some of those names for the first time and were very impressed with their work), profile some of the people doing it, and to generate some interesting discussions. It's achieved all of those things.

I don't regret posting it at all. I learned long ago, and as someone else also said, you can't please everyone. So these days I don't even try.

[Alchemy]

wow , wouldnt have thought it was such a contentous issue, i considered mikes list and as stated it was his opinion, mine might be different but i dont see what the big deal is. he has his favorites, i have mine. Mine probably would lean to deep sky as that my interest, and i would have different criteria due to my own personal experience.

i read his article and enjoyed it


cheers clive

[TrevorW]

Maybe the title should have just read

"MS own opinion on who are the currently the best Top 10 AAP in Australia including me just for the hell of it and I know this will stir up a hornets nest but what the heck I did it my way"

:D:P;):rofl::mad::prey2::painting:: camera::bowdown::tasdevil::juggle:: eek::scared3::whistle::ashamed:

[ausastronomer]

If that was what you were trying to achieve Mike a heading along the lines of:-

"A Showcase of 'some' of Australia's Best Astrophotographers and their Images"

might have achieved the same goals without creating controversy.

To start with, IMO you should have segregated planetary imaging from DSO imaging. They are totally different and in the main require different skills and equipment. In many cases some of the people taking good planetary images don't take good DSO images and vice versa. Some that are extremely skilled; and with the right equipment, do an excellent job of both. To include someone in a "top 10" field that covers astrophotography as a generalisation, when they take less than outstanding DSO images and in some cases very average DSO images, to me is a misnomer. Further, to come up with a "top 10" designation to me is just way too subjective when as far as I am concerned you have left out a big part of the field and a few top contenders.

I just think you created something controversial when you could have achieved the goals you set out to achieve without being controversial.

Should you have included yourself in the list? Had you created the subject as a generalisation of Australias Best Astrophotography without a "top 10" designation, unquestionably so. On the basis that you have created the list? I don't know. I don't know enough about astrophotography to split hairs at the top level. To say that one image is better than another is subjective in itself and that's why I think a generalisation of "Some of Australia's Best Astrophotographers and their work" would have been a far more diligent approach. You include yourself and exclude Paul Haese. I rate Paul's planetary images the equal of yours and his Deep Sky images infinitely better, but again that is subjective. It's only my opinion. I guarantee you can find 100 people that think your planetary images are better than Paul's, again that is subjective. Should you not have placed more emphasis on Paul's superior imaging skills of DSO targets? Again that is subjective. I have never been totally impressed with "most" of Anthony Wesley's images. I will admit he has come up with a couple of crackers. They always strike me as being "overprocessed" and grainy. I can appreciate that is Anthony's personal style and he does it to try and extract the extra detail that type of processing brings out. To my eye it is not as aesthetically pleasing as some of the planetary images done by other people. I guarantee you can find 100 people who will tell you Anthony is the best planetary imager in Australia. Again that is subjective.

If you just wanted to showcase Australian Astrophotogrpahy, which is some of the best in the world, I think you could have done so with a lot less controversy.

List all the good ones, put them in together and not rank them in any order, would have been the way to go IMO.

[Hagar]

I can't see what all the fuss is about. One mans opinion, stated quite clearly from the start. Seems to me there is a lot of people out there who disagree with the list, that is up to you. Make your own list and post it where ever you wish. When it all boils down, who really cares.Seems to me to be all about rattleing a chain and see who gets fired up.
GROW UP.

[Peter Ward]

Oh for heavens sake. PC homogenised rubbish. :P

Mike is perfectly entitled to create a 10-15-20 best list of whatever he likes.

If you don't like his criteria, ignore it, make you own list or whatever.

It seems to me this PC has gone way too far. Cream is not allowed to rise to the top. We must not offend or create controversy....be told what to think.....shades or Orwell or what?

I like to see what the guys at the cutting edge are up to... its fun to see the the lead to change...and I suspect many others would prefer this to plain vanilla.

[rogerg]

I couldn't agree more. I can't believe the crap Mike is getting for this! :screwy:

[troypiggo]

It's all about the title. "The Top 10 Best Astrophotographers in Australia" at first glance gives the reader the impression that they are going to be looking at some official list of the top 10 astrophotographers in Australia. I know, I know. I actually read the blog/article and understood that it was actually Mike's list based on certain criteria, and he clearly explains all that in the article. No question.

But if the title of the article was simply changed to "My Top 10 Best Astrophotographers in Australia" the whole debate is over. There can be no questioning his list, because who can argue who his top ten are? And as the article clarifies, this is really what the list is.

I'm actually loving this thread. Being new to this whole astronomy/astrophography thing, I have heard of some of those names mentioned both in Mike's list and the others added here later. But many I have not heard of, so have been googling and checking out galleries etc. Awesome all around.

If nothing else, it's been a great showcase which I guess is what the original intention was anyway.

So to Mike, for posting the original article, showcasing some great astrophotogs, copping a whole lot of flak for doing so, and keeping this thread open despite it all, I say "thankyou".

To those who said "what about so and so, he should have been on the list", I also say "thankyou" for highlighting some other great astrophotogs and making me aware of them.

And to those who said "I should be on the list, my images are better than so and so" I also say "thankyou" for giving me a benchmark to aspire to. I'll be sure to let you know if/when I think my images meet that benchmark. :)

[marki]

Mike I did not expect a seriously considered answer to my post but thanks anyway. I was simply having a go at those who seemed miffed because their favourites were not on the list even though they kept their pictures hidden from public view:screwy:. My suggested title was very much toungue in cheek. Astrophotography is art and appraising art is always subjective (beuty is in the eye of the beholder) which is why I tell my students not to do it as a final year subject as they just don't know what mark they will end up with. Chemistry and physics are much better :D. Perhaps we should all put on little red beret's and talk a load of BS whilst sipping on champagne, not sure:shrug:. The bottom line is that you clearly stated that this was your list and people should respect that. Mine would be a little different so what.

Peter I certainly agree with you, PC gone mad :screwy:.

Mark

[Gallifreyboy]

I have watched this thread with interest. Seeing there are over 60 posts and approaching 2000 views I think it needs a resolution.

I propose a faceoff between Iceman and selected others in the top 10 versus the aggrieved others...... WWF style with tags. (I suspect Iceman will choose Strongman just quietly) 1 weapon of choice from their armoury for their signature moves....(if only dobs were better for astrophotography)

3 rounds of noncontroversial physical combat with the winner entitled to claim title of 10 best wrestling astrophotographers.

[ausastronomer]

That goes without saying. He can post what he likes on his website.

Referring back for the second time to Mike's stated goals of the excercise:-



Having regard to Mike's stated goals, I think his effort in putting such a list together would have gained a wider spread of acceptance and endorsement from the entire astronomy community, had he done it a little differently to how he chose to do it.



Sir Donald Bradman was repeatedly asked after he retired, "who are the best cricketers of all time". He never once included himself. Sir Garfield Sobers was repeatedly asked the same question. He never once mentioned himself. Those two people "could" have rightfully posted themselves right at the absolute very top of the tree. In the best interests of humility and prudence, they never ever did. People rarely if ever threw rocks at them. By including himself in a subjective arguable decision, Mike has asked for people to throw rocks IMO. For someone I rate as a great bloke and highly intelligent, I think he could have done this smarter. A great place to start would have been to exclude himself with a rider noting that he had excluded himself on the grounds of humility and prudence, as he was sole judge, jury and executioner.

Cheers,
John B

[matt]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Thanks for the levity injection.

And we wonder why we're viewed as being a little 'odd' by the broader non-astro community.

A lot of this has moved into the realm of the embarrassing. People tripping over themselves to correct what doesn't require correcting, since it's one man's subjective list. People tripping over themselves to qualify that which does not need qualifying...since it was already qualified. Semantic debate over Titles or Headings...

There are more important things to focus on....like it's the weekend....the sky is clear here in Brisbane...the Anzac spirit and the fact we're all alive and things could be a whole lot worse:D

[davidpretorius]

WHAT???

bloody hell, get that telescope out!

I had honestly thought it was going to rain in brisbane and having seeing at 2/10 for the rest of our natural lives :P:rofl:


My List will be .... "Top ten embarassing and controversial astronomy related forums threads":scared:

[davidpretorius]

..............and Bert Newton will count em down!

[Lester]

Welcome back to the Tassie Ice Breaker.

I vote you number 1 for the new leader of the Taliban.

ps. I am not meaning to spam this thread, but it needed something light hearted.

[avandonk]

Interesting posts on the interesting list.

Veeery interrrresting? But stupid!

We may as well argue that I looked more times than you, therefore I am a better observer

I started looking before most of you were born and to the astronomers before me I am a newcomer. It is a hobby folks!
It is meant to be enjoyable and educational and sharing all that sort of stuff. Not bickering who has the biggest toy or eyeball.

Yes I am a budding pop star that wants to have a number one hit! I won't get it by arguing with the current pop charts. I have to go out and produce the goods.

If anything Mikes List has stirred a bit of interest. At least he had the nerve to give his opinion. Just as the rest of you or I could give ours.


Bert