Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut
Well Clive, I know where your at there, im no Wide Field fan iether (but can appreciate a really good WF image). I dont want to bring up that hory old "Relative to gear" saga again but if one is inclined to bust a gut trying to beat the best in a comp (and competition is not to everyones taste of course) one should keep in mind.
1/ Top shelf gear always gets better, but so does the rest, the relative difference is much the same, and is arguably drawing closer.
2/ David Malin is aware of the gear issue and deliberately encourages innovation over gear. eg Peter Wards DSLR mages, this years "star trails" award, and the "inovation" award.
3/ My old soap box, megadata and carefull processing can produce images better than the gear list would suggest, although there is a down side, a permanent installation is just about a given.
4/ Just for a comp, rent time on top gear, this sticks in the throat for many, but $100 odd would produce the kind of image youd frame, show off to friends and enter comps with, again not for everyone but doable, and a lot less $ per image than the guys who own the stuff, trust me, I know 
I think the main reason for guys not entering comps is, they dont feel like it (fair enough), or they lack confidence or imagination or the balls to bother.
Hey, ive never won anything in a comp, but still try  . |
Fred,
Your response highlights some of the elements why I don't participate in such events.
Astroimaging is too much of an art form at the expense of science. I put far less emphasis on image processing, as a result my images may have less of a wow factor but are probably closer to reality. I don't feel very comfortable processing an image that ends up looking as if it was taken with a 4 metre telescope.
If there was a competition where there was more emphasis on the raw data (ie the only manipulation allowed would be to shape the histogram), I'd be the first in line to submit images.
Regards
Steven