Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
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.
|
If that was what you were trying to achieve Mike a heading along the lines of:-
"A Showcase of 'some' of Australia's Best Astrophotographers and their Images"
might have achieved the same goals without creating controversy.
To start with, IMO you should have segregated planetary imaging from DSO imaging. They are totally different and in the main require different skills and equipment. In many cases some of the people taking good planetary images don't take good DSO images and vice versa. Some that are extremely skilled; and with the right equipment, do an excellent job of both. To include someone in a "top 10" field that covers astrophotography as a generalisation, when they take less than outstanding DSO images and in some cases very average DSO images, to me is a misnomer. Further, to come up with a "top 10" designation to me is just way too subjective when as far as I am concerned you have left out a big part of the field and a few top contenders.
I just think you created something controversial when you could have achieved the goals you set out to achieve without being controversial.
Should you have included yourself in the list? Had you created the subject as a generalisation of Australias Best Astrophotography without a "top 10" designation, unquestionably so. On the basis that you have created the list? I don't know. I don't know enough about astrophotography to split hairs at the top level. To say that one image is better than another is subjective in itself and that's why I think a generalisation of "Some of Australia's Best Astrophotographers and their work" would have been a far more diligent approach. You include yourself and exclude Paul Haese. I rate Paul's planetary images the equal of yours and his Deep Sky images infinitely better, but again that is subjective. It's only my opinion. I guarantee you can find 100 people that think your planetary images are better than Paul's, again that is subjective. Should you not have placed more emphasis on Paul's superior imaging skills of DSO targets? Again that is subjective. I have never been totally impressed with "most" of Anthony Wesley's images. I will admit he has come up with a couple of crackers. They always strike me as being "overprocessed" and grainy. I can appreciate that is Anthony's personal style and he does it to try and extract the extra detail that type of processing brings out. To my eye it is not as aesthetically pleasing as some of the planetary images done by other people. I guarantee you can find 100 people who will tell you Anthony is the best planetary imager in Australia. Again that is subjective.
If you just wanted to showcase Australian Astrophotogrpahy, which is some of the best in the world, I think you could have done so with a lot less controversy.
List all the good ones, put them in together and not rank them in any order, would have been the way to go IMO.