|
Congratulations to all the entrants, all the winners and all the honourable mentions, did I miss anyone (yes - Judges and Organisers and Hosts and sponsors - better not forget spouses and friends) - congratulations to them also !
Another point of view :
As far as the healthy conjecture is concerned, I think the organisers will always have some difficulty with their divisional groupings.
How do we categorise all the food stuffs in a supermarket - there is a million different ways ! (by brand, aisle or shelf height, price, colour, flavour, value, use, quality, safety, efficacy, shelf life . . . )
The Astro playing field is not level and far from static and never will be, their will always be people with $1,000 budgets, those with $10,000 budgets and those with $100,000 budgets, just as their will be people who have different levels of mastery of the imaging and post processing software and have developed their own special techniques and skills.
So budget could be a factor ?
You could split up imaging by film, DSLR and Astro camera
Then split it up by megapixels, cryogenic cooling and 10 other features
Maybe split by manual focussing or electronic, what about temperature compensated.
Then we get to Scopes - aperture, optical design, focal length . . . . . . .
Then by Mounts - hand operated !, mechanical, through to totally robotic and remote controlled etc
Or do we base it on the entrants own level of input into the construction of the equipment used !
Post processing - unprocessed through to some complex algorthm for what PP actually occurred - with much argument !
Its an impossible task to get it perfect and please all parties.
These are all valid and plausible criteria for how it could get grouped - but what a mess it would be.
No matter how it gets arranged there is always the possibility that there could be a minority group who may be unfairly disadvantaged or even advantaged.
I think that it is likely that new classes will be entertained as the community gets more involved and the level of entrants increases and that would be a good thing.
It is also likely that more Subject categories could be created as this would split up the field a little - trying to compare the merits of some of the widely differing entries would also be a difficult task - a bit like comparing the merits of embroidery to software or target shooting to architectural design !
But what is really great about the whole process is the high quality of imaging and the continuing development and expansion of the craft of Astro Imagery.
It is clearly growing and Awards like this help stimulate it and I am sure that is one of the aims of the program.
The Awards were given to the best results as determined by the judges.
But I guess having some clear definitions of what the classes mean and there ranges and limits would be nice, but consider that maybe we should give the judges some latitude so that they may make awards to the best of the images as they see fit ?
Personally I dont see there being a problem with hiring a scope, we could borrow a friend's scope if we wanted and that would be OK. At least everyone is on a level playing field here as nearly everyone can afford $100-200 to do so if they really desired.
After all - It would be prejudicial to those who cant afford or dont want to buy expensive gear that would like to enter such a contest !
But maybe a classification is required - maybe not.
Food for thought anyway.
Cheers
Rally
PS Should a Hubble image be allowed ?
I gues if you paid for the time, was instrumental in its operation and targetting and performed the final processing and it was entered into a suitable category - why not !
Hope I dont need to duck !!
|