|
Well this thread has certainly prompted some spirited discussion! Rightly so as we're all very passionate about this hobby.
Personally I think we're very lucky to have someone of David's past professional experience as the judge. I emphasise the word professional as he did AP for a living, for decades, garnering much respect for his abilities.
As amateurs, it's really not for us to express sour grapes or second guess his choices or reasoning. We don't have the same level of professional experience, regardless of how much time or cash we have invested in our equipment. Enter or don't enter, it's our choice - but *****ing about seems unproductive.
As to the matter of narrowband colours etc. That's a seperate issue imo. David's comments about respecting the light were directed at the core of a nebula which he believed needed to be bright, so one could see where the light was coming from in that particular HaRGB image.
The scientific value of amateur images is a valid point as evidenced by Mike Sidonio's recent discovery of a previously unknown galaxy. A wonderful achievement, perhaps similar in some ways to the numerous comets discovered by Lovejoy et al.
However, it's unlikely that much actual 'science' can be read into an amateur Narrowband image, although the use of these filters does make it easier for an amateur to identify regions of S2, O3 & Ha etc. regardless of the colour palatte used. With a few exceptions, these images are primarily taken for the photographers own enjoyment and sharing in communities such as this forum and astronomy clubs, although some have commercialised their efforts as well.
Awards are there to motivate us to improve our skills, and to measure our abilities against others. As many of us work in isolation, awards bring us together in the spirit of friendly competition. I personally have learned a great deal from entering the Malins, the Moran Prize, the NPP and the Aipp Appas etc.
As to the proposed IIS awards, there are many online awards models in existance already. The Loupe and the Epson Pano awards are examples where a panel of experienced judges worldwide assess anonymously entered works, scoring from 50-100/100. Bronze (75-79) Silver (80-89) and Gold awards (90+) are given, as well as an overall highest scoring winner.
Imo though a panel should only be made up of very experienced forum members, whose knowlege and skills are recognised alongside their ability to communicate the value or fault in an image, to help improve the entrant's abilities.
The problem with these online models though is there is no opportunity to debate the merits or shortcomings of an image with one's fellow judges. In the Aipp model, a 'live' panel of 5 judges sit together and individually score an anonymously entered image from 50-100/100. The score is then averaged and announced. However the score can be challenged by a judge if he/she feels it's too low or high and a debate ensues. Following the often lively discussion, the scores are allowed to be re-entered, (the challengers score remains locked in) and the final scores are averaged and announced. It's a marvellous ststem, iniated in Australia which has since been widely copied worldwide.
Finally, I too had a few minutes with David Malin after the CWAS awards, and I asked him why he liked my winning deep space image. He said it was the strong combination of impact and aesthetics that caught his eye. Hope that's useful.
Cheers
Andy
|