[AJames]

Originally Posted by montewilson

Guys - Give us a break! We spent a lot of meeting time nutting out the rules of the competition. The motivation of the clause has nothing to do with remote scopes. It was to be sure that the entrant, is the one who took the picture (and subs), nothing more.
There were complaints because we didn't have this rule last year. Now there are complaints because we do. Woe is us. Greg Priestly spent a lot of time writing and re-writing the rules until we were all happy with them.
Running Australias largest star party is not easy. It is all done by volunteers, all prizes are dontated. Please be understand the challenges involved in pleasing everyone.

I think you might find their two issues here running alongside each other here.

1) H0ughty I think, has simply been questioned the rule - without criticism - that;

4. All images must be the sole work of the entrant. The acquisition equipment must have been under their exclusive control of the entrant at the time the image data was acquired, with all subsequent processing undertaken by the entrant. The inclusion of data obtained from other imagers or public sources is prohibited.

To me this is fair enough, and is based on judgement of images made solely by the imager. There are no complaints about this rule - the ASNSW is running this competition anyway. How you decide to run it is the choice of the management of the ASNSWI.

However, to properly reiterate this issue, H0ughty (IMO) original questioning statement is;

But it’s the obscure description of the next part of the sentence that really gets me going. “The acquisition equipment must have been under their exclusive control of the entrant at the time the image data was acquired.

I think his point, and my own personal view, is quite valid. In fact it is one of the key and current problems of defining what amateur "images" actually are, and what they are actually contributing to the process. (Obviously, for the sake of an example, if I was given access to the AAO for a night, and entered an image to the competition, would I not have an unfair advantage if I made an image myself?)
Clearly, gaining the image at the telescope is also completely separate (or is it?) to the processing via stacking or software manipulation. Concern here I think is more about compliance for the competition not about the current ASNSWI's rules themselves.

As to Greg's statement;

The rule was very deliberately worded. I have very definitive view of what I intended. You can continue to speculate if you like, but it would be better if you actually waited for something concrete then just muddying the water.

The point is others here, including me, are unsure - held especially in light of the diversity with mostly expensive equipment and commercial software presently held now by the amateur astronomer.

(IMO this statement has an air of superiority and "un-genuine spirit" which comes across is a little condescending. After all, your SPSP relies on others beyond the ASNSWI to come along to this event to make it viable and profitable. It also comes across - rightly or wrongly - as avoiding the question.)

2) The secondary issue here, as I see it, is the "artistic" nature of photographic or imaging and the complexity of judging images or entering any photographic competition.

Most here, IMO, are not being disingenuous, or even showing any degree of pomposity. Sadly, our amateur astronomy these days is becoming more a rich-person's sport, with the divide continuously widening. Much of the debate here (IMO) is more about the quintessence of the modern amateur imager and the amount (or lack) of their abilities. Frankly - some monetary prize is meaningless unless it assists the amateur improving his or her skills.