[iceman (Mike)]

More interesting discussions

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I have no qualms about including myself in the top ten planetary imagers, but this is based on my results in the last two years.

There are many, many top-level planetary imagers whose work is equal to and at times better than yours, mine, Anthony's and others in your circle of friends that you list. You just need to look at Fabio Plocos, Dario Pires, Alan Friedman and many many more outside a closed circle to find other people doing exceptional planetary imaging. Even in Australia, people like Zac Pujic, Maurice Valimberti and Stephen Buda have been producing quality planetary images for years before you or I were.

It's clear to most people at the top level that their skill levels are all very equal, and he/she who gets the best seeing gets the best images.
There would be literally a hundred or more people who have an excellent foundation of capturing and processing planetary images, including collimation, temperature control, focus, capture settings and image processing. Then it just comes down to getting the best seeing.
Of course there's slight differences in technique, particularly processing and some do that better than others, but it's a very level playing field at the top level.

So "prudence" would suggest some humility before assertion.

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

In terms of the top ten Australian astrophotographers (this is a broad term, it may well include many aspects of the hobby), well who knows. Probably not. As many have said there are many people who are far better than a lot of people on your list but never even got mentioned. Not having website, or being published makes it hard to know about them. You said this much yourself. Additionally do you say for one field, for a variety of fields or do you say as an all rounder. The definition of Astrophotographer is difficult. Or should it be by what sort of equipment one owns?

I'm not sure what your point is - you're just re-iterating what I've already said.
I've already stated my criteria and what was and wasn't taken into account. You or anyone else is free at any time to state your own criteria and name your own list.

Originally Posted by Virgs

What I understand is that people on cloudy nights and here took offence that the title as it was worded implied that this was some how an official list or should be thought of as such - even though he does state clearly the criteria used.

Sorry but this is incorrect - it was one person who signed up anonymously at CN to criticise it.
The title is the title. There's nothing official about it and if people bothered to read the article, on at least 4 separate occassions it states that it's my personal opinion.
Mike's analogy with his strongman efforts are a good example.
Also, on TV when you see shows titled "World's Greatest Commercials", do you actually think that's some official list put together by some world TV commercial classification body? Or do you think it's just put together by some producer?

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Have to agree with you on that one John, Joe is a mostly silent acheiver so just slipped under Mikes Radar I am sure.

Quite right - I missed including Joe; he definitely would've made my list. I'm a big fan of his work and have seen it win many awards at SPSP competitions.

Originally Posted by marki

if the images are not in the lime light how can one include it on a list? Perhaps Mike should have called it the top ten astrophotographers posting on IIS

It's certainly more difficult to find the great photography if you don't see it posted anywhere. Many great astrophotographers in Australia keep their work to themselves and simply print it out for their wall at home.
However in my list, I certainly didn't restrict myself by looking simply at members of IceInSpace. Steve Crouch, for example, is not a member of IceInSpace and is easily one of Australia's top astrophotographers.
It just so happens that the majority of who I consider top astrophotographers are or have been active members of IceInSpace. That doesn't mean my list was biased. IceInSpace has a very large reach in Australia so it's expected.

I knew the list would be controversial, and as Peter said, it was a brave move posting it. But that's what I started my personal blog for - to post my personal opinions.

The article was meant to highlight the great photography we do in Australia (many people on overseas forums have seen some of those names for the first time and were very impressed with their work), profile some of the people doing it, and to generate some interesting discussions. It's achieved all of those things.

I don't regret posting it at all. I learned long ago, and as someone else also said, you can't please everyone. So these days I don't even try.