[Peter Ward]

The wash-up after the Malin's is always interesting. I was amazed to get a gong for albeit a higher than your average resolution a monochrome lunar image, but from the hand full of entries I submitted, while I thought the framing and res wasn't too shabby, it was my "least required effort" entry to be sure.

But as for the competition, it's David Malin's call and if you don't like his take on AP, then don't enter. There have been some well known imagers who take cheap shots and deride both the judge and the format, but I'd say it's simply a case of good old Aussie tall poppy syndrome with a bowl of sour grapes.

I've had some success at CWAS from what I believe is revealing the unaltered beauty of nature, hidden in the night sky, rather than turning everything into Las Vegas neon lights. With over 50 HM/HC's, the innovation prize, over a dozen category wins and the "big one" a couple of times I suspect that ethos is also what David likes to see.

But you might want to consider the following if you enter next year: is the colour accurate? Do extensive research by examining a professional observatory images and glean what colour H-alpha should be, (and h-beta, and OIII etc.) If you make something that really should be red look purple it will be culled pretty quickly.

Is the relative brightness correct? Sure, use Photoshop curves the enhance the values, but breaking from reality will again not be looked upon kindly.

Is the subject matter engaging? i.e. would you cross the room for a closer look? If it is REALLY engaging you will be forgiven technical faults (poor tracking, noise, focus, clipping etc.) If it is a well known "showcase" object what are you revealing that has not been shown before? Extreme depth or extremely high resolution or showing subtle colour variations that have REAL physical processes behind them is challenging, but often brings a fresh perspective to 'oft imaged objects.

Push the envelope of your field size...spaning tens of degrees or just a few arc minutes, provided you can maintain high resolution can give breathtaking results.
Troy's winning wide field images and dare I say my own M42 ( not M42 again!) is testimony to that.

There is an ocean full of FL 1200mm deep-sky images out there....and yes Virginia...they mostly look the same.

Tracking, focus, exposure, noise and processing artefacts all need to be under control or absent. This is a national competition. Get the basics right! To quote Yoda: "Do or do not...there is no try". Stars are eggy or out of focus (crucifixion on the left) or they are not (freedom on the right).

Lastly, calibrate you monitor with a Spyder Pro or similar, almost every year David comments "If only this had been calibrated properly.."
Just my 2cents worth.