<part 2 - read part 1 first>
You need to take the rule in context of the wider competition. There were only 14 entrants and 72 images last year and this needs to grow for this competition to remain interesting / viable. As such I'd like to have this as inclusive as possible for entrants and I don't want to artificially limit who can enter based on advances in new technology not being recognised.
Also, I want to try and avoid things get legalistic - the last thing we need is a 20 page entry form with prescriptive rules that only a lawyer can understand - in such a situtation no one will enter - no one will want to run the competition (especially me), and we will have missed the entire point. You have to remember that this isn't a 100m Olympic race - people aren't competiting at the same time at the same place, with the same equipment, taking the same object. There are going to be discrepancies between images / imaging equipment / imaging skills and the like. And it's impossible to normalise for every variation.
Just for clarity, this is the rule as is stands for 2008:
"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."
It's designed to prevent last years situation but not prohibit new technology.
I don't want this competition to be legalistic in nature. If we took a literal reading of the first sentence, then it could be argued that no one could ever possibly enter as it's not the sole work of the entrant - they didn't make the digger that mined the sand that made the glass that was ground into lenses that was incorporated into the telescope that was installed on a mount which had a "camera" attached designed by someone in Japan, and fabricated in China and Malaysia and assembled in Indonesia and combined with software written in the USA, etc, etc.
So hence a more common sense approach applies (same applies to the rule of amateur astro imager - just because you received $20 for having an image published on SPACE.COM doesn't make you a professional).
I think the last sentence is also relatively unambigous - you can't combine data obtained from someone else (eg specifically banning last years scenario in which Mike Sidonio would not be able to include any data from Wolfgang Pomper) or from a public source. With respect to public sources I mean the publically accessible libraries of FITs and other source data files that are available - I don't want someone to take a shot of an object, and then combine it with data available from the Hubble archives for instance.
So it's the open wording of the second paragraph which has people concerned - "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."
There are various shades of grey and to illustrate this, let me use the following FICTIOUS scenario (I only wish I had half of this sort of setup). Ask yourself, can I enter the competition in each of these examples?
- I purchase a telescope and put it on a fixed mount with a camera. Can I enter? Y/N
- I put it on an undriven equitorial mount and do manual tracking. Can I enter? Y/N
- I add a drive to the equitorial mount. Can I enter? Y/N
- I have a computerised mount. Can I enter? Y/N
- I setup periodic error correction on my computerised mount. Can I enter? Y/N
- I add a guide scope to my mount and use software to adjust tracking errors. Can I enter? Y/N
- To prevent wind, I install the mount inside an observatory dome. Can I enter? Y/N
- I suffer from light polution and move my equipment to a dark sky sight. Can I enter? Y/N
- The equipment is installed at the weekender out bush. Can I enter? Y/N
- To improve focus of my images, I install an electric focuser. Can I enter? Y/N
- I connect my computer for control of the electric focuser. Can I enter? Y/N
- I install software on my computer to automatically focus the image. Can I enter? Y/N
- I use a Canon 40D camera. I press physically press the camera button. Can I enter? Y/N
- To reduce vibrations, I use mirror lock up. Can I enter? Y/N
- But that doesn't resolve the problem, so I purchase a remote shutter release switch. Can I enter? Y/N
- I buy the top of the line model remote shutter release, which has timer functionality where you can set delay the start of capture, control the number of shots taken, as well as the exposure time. Can I enter? Y/N
- Instead of this, I connect it to my computer and use software to activate the shutter. Can I enter? Y/N
- I now have everything fully under computer control. Can I enter? Y/N
- My arthritis plays up when sitting out in the cold. I get long extension leads for my keyboard, mouse and monitor and can image from inside the house. Can I enter? Y/N
- Physical cables are too expensive for that lenght of run, but I can take over the computer via a wireless network for $100. Can I enter? Y/N
- With the observatory connected to the internet connection at the weekender in the bush, and with an internet connection at home, I can now take over the telescope from my city house at night and remotely control it. Can I enter? Y/N
- I'm tired and going to bed early. I schedule the equipment to take the remaining shots and then shutdown. Can I enter? Y/N
- I find that I can programme in a night's observing run and the equipment will do everything automatically. Can I enter? Y/N
- I relocate the equipment to an ultra dark sky site. Can I enter? Y/N
- The ultra dark sky site is in New Mexico. Can I enter? Y/N
- I win lotto and buy the above make my dreams above a reality. Can I enter? Y/N
- Rather than winning lotto, I win $10,000 on the pokies at the local club. I can't afford to buy all of the equipment myself, but find a few other people who would like to share it. We buy it on a time share basis. Can I enter? Y/N
- I'm unlucky and never win anything - but I have a friend who owns this setup. I use it for a night. Can I enter? Y/N
- I buy my mate a case of beer as thanks. Can I enter? Y/N
- My mate doesn't drink beer but wants cash. Can I enter? Y/N
- Instead of it being a mate, it's a business who sells time on astronomical equipment. Can I enter? Y/N
--------------------------------------------------------
- Instead of taking over the equipment and having exclusive control over it, I instead pay a business to acquire a specific image. Can I enter? NO
- Instead of taking over the equipment and having exclusive control over it, I instead ask a friend to acquire a specific image. Can I enter? NO
- Instead of taking over the equipment and having exclusive control over it, I instead ask a friend for an image that they have already
- captured. Can I enter? NO
Obviously each of the above is just a small progression in technology or automation from the previous step. The question is where do you draw the line.
I will plead ignorance as to how the commercial scopes actually work. I saw a documentary which talked about the four brothers behind Bisque and they showed them installing a setup in New Mexico for a remote customer who took over the computer remotely via the internet and this is my understanding of how some of these systems work. This is where the operator has exclusive control.
Others have said that some of the commerical rentable scopes are more based on a request system where you enter the co-ordinates of the object and what you want done and this will be placed in an observing queue with the results emailed to you later. This latter in my mind is not permissable as the equipment is not under your exclusive control.
So up until the last three (before I drew the line), I don't have a problem with this in the context of the rule (and this is what I intended) - this is what is readily available today and each and every entrant would be using some combination of these various technologies and scenarios.
Maybe I should have just left the second sentence out - it doesn't change my intent or intepretation.
Remember that there is more to a winning image then the cost of the equipment it was acquired on. Life is not fair and someone will always have better equipment - but that's not the sole or even primary factor.
I just want to reiterate a few other changes to the rules and the reasons - you must provide details of the object, mount, scope and
camera on the image. Again this is based on feedback from last year where people didn't always know what they were looking at, nor could they judge the merit - what might be superb image taken on an ED80, might be an ordinary image taken with a 20" RC scope (remember that each of the individual attendees of the SPSP will determine the criteria important to them in judging the image they consider to be the best and some may well take into consideration the type and cost of equipment used).
The other one which I intend to enforce this year, imaage size is to be no bigger than A4 with no mounting boards, etc. This is for purely logistical reasons - the space on viewing boards is limited and whilst having a nice display and frame around your image makes it look really good, it disadvantages other entrants, and hence the move to restrict the size.
As I said earlier, I expect people may not agree with where I've drawn the line in the sand, but to me it's all a logical progression. Just because you have a different opinion where the line should be doesn't make the rules wrong or the competition rigged. I'm very open to feedback for 2009 - but if all you can say is "I don't like it" or "it's unfair" without offering specific solutions then don't expect me to place too much weighting on your feedback.
That's about all I've got to say at the moment.
Greg Priestley
Organiser, The Astro's 2008 - SPSP
(Next year I might change Rule 4 to read - the organiser is always right - if in doubt read Rule 4).