Quote:
Originally Posted by astroron
I note a couple of posters in this thread have mentioned the "Scientific value"
What do they do with this scientific information?
|
As one of the posters that made mention of the scientific value I'll tell you what I do with the information, everybody else will be different. I am a chemist (NOT a pharmacist, a chemist), as such, and with a little bit of further reading I know probably a bit more than the average Joe about the composition of nebulous clouds. The extra scientific information adds to my appreciation of the object being imaged because I understand, at least partly, it's genesis. I can then extrapolate this to us, our solar system and planet. I'm not pretending that I understand the Universe as well as say, Brian Cox or Carl Sagan but every piece of information gathered adds to this understanding. I love looking at the individual emissions of atoms represented as colours in my images. As a scientist I strive for this garnering of information in pretty much everything I do. So to answer your underlying question, I sort of do it out of habit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
 ......
The issue of science value has been raised in the discussion and I think that there is some science value in what we do. It is rarely direct (eg like Mike or Trevor or BOSS), but nonetheless valuable. In trying to understand what we image, we often greatly increase our own knowledge of the underlying physics and then, when we talk to others (formally or otherwise), some of that understanding will get a wider audience. Like any form of education, the impact can be unpredictable and occasionally far reaching - this is an exciting aspect of what we do. Respecting and understanding the light is inherent in increasing our own understanding - nothing to do with competitions of course, but competitions can force us to confront issues that we might otherwise gloss over, so they have a place. |
I agree completely, when I explain some of the images to my work colleagues, some of whom are also chemists, but pretty much all are scientists, all gain greater understanding from the science behind the images. Net gain of knowledge = good thing. But, to say that an image is of lesser quality (which competitions naturally have to do) merely because it doesn't fit some arbitrary phrase, dismissing any other qualities it may have is, IMHO, a very narrow view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
I disagree -
A competition makes people strive to do their best.
|
Unfortunately competitions also bring out the worst in people, we've all seen it, it's ugly. I played local cricket for many years, in the lower grades, mainly because it was fun. I was never very good, but the main reason I retired was that some of the other teams in the competition would actually cheat, openly, just to win (OK I was also old, slow and bits of me kept breaking), the enjoyment was lost. I only hope that those that strive to win the Malins don't lose their enjoyment of AP along the way.
I love AP, it frustrates the hell out of me at times, but I love it. I just wish I had darker skies. I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but many of the people here who struggle with the "respecting the light" concept image from urban or suburban areas (hence many use narrowband imaging), perhaps because there appears to be little respect for light (pollution) in these built up areas it's difficult to visualise the concept? Discuss ... nicely please.
Cheers
Stuart