Grave concerns over the 2008 Astro Imaging competition at SPSP

[AJames]

Originally Posted by montewilson

Guys - Give us a break! We spent a lot of meeting time nutting out the rules of the competition. The motivation of the clause has nothing to do with remote scopes. It was to be sure that the entrant, is the one who took the picture (and subs), nothing more.
There were complaints because we didn't have this rule last year. Now there are complaints because we do. Woe is us. Greg Priestly spent a lot of time writing and re-writing the rules until we were all happy with them.
Running Australias largest star party is not easy. It is all done by volunteers, all prizes are dontated. Please be understand the challenges involved in pleasing everyone.

I think you might find their two issues here running alongside each other here.

1) H0ughty I think, has simply been questioned the rule - without criticism - that;

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.

To me this is fair enough, and is based on judgement of images made solely by the imager. There are no complaints about this rule - the ASNSW is running this competition anyway. How you decide to run it is the choice of the management of the ASNSWI.

However, to properly reiterate this issue, H0ughty (IMO) original questioning statement is;

But it’s the obscure description of the next part of the sentence that really gets me going. “The acquisition equipment must have been under their exclusive control of the entrant at the time the image data was acquired.

I think his point, and my own personal view, is quite valid. In fact it is one of the key and current problems of defining what amateur "images" actually are, and what they are actually contributing to the process. (Obviously, for the sake of an example, if I was given access to the AAO for a night, and entered an image to the competition, would I not have an unfair advantage if I made an image myself?)
Clearly, gaining the image at the telescope is also completely separate (or is it?) to the processing via stacking or software manipulation. Concern here I think is more about compliance for the competition not about the current ASNSWI's rules themselves.

As to Greg's statement;

The rule was very deliberately worded. I have very definitive view of what I intended. You can continue to speculate if you like, but it would be better if you actually waited for something concrete then just muddying the water.

The point is others here, including me, are unsure - held especially in light of the diversity with mostly expensive equipment and commercial software presently held now by the amateur astronomer.

(IMO this statement has an air of superiority and "un-genuine spirit" which comes across is a little condescending. After all, your SPSP relies on others beyond the ASNSWI to come along to this event to make it viable and profitable. It also comes across - rightly or wrongly - as avoiding the question.)

2) The secondary issue here, as I see it, is the "artistic" nature of photographic or imaging and the complexity of judging images or entering any photographic competition.

Most here, IMO, are not being disingenuous, or even showing any degree of pomposity. Sadly, our amateur astronomy these days is becoming more a rich-person's sport, with the divide continuously widening. Much of the debate here (IMO) is more about the quintessence of the modern amateur imager and the amount (or lack) of their abilities. Frankly - some monetary prize is meaningless unless it assists the amateur improving his or her skills.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Frankly I think people are kidding themselves if they seriously think getting a great image is only about the equipment. You don't need super expensive gear to get a great image, but I'd suggest you do need to be careful, so whatever you use, will not be pushed beyond its limits and render the subject in a technically poor way.

I agree, the other factor is that most astroimagers start off with modest optical equipment and make the transistion to the more expensive stuff. The imaging and processing skills are usually aquired during the modest equipment phase. The aquisition of an RC for example might represent a fine tuning process in image quality.

I have seen many excellent SCT images which rival or are superior to RCs of the same aperture.

Here is an example by Alex Sanz http://www.astrosurf.com:80/asanz/GNGC4216.htm

Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by AJames

Most here, IMO, are not being disingenuous, or even showing any degree of pomposity. Sadly, our amateur astronomy these days is becoming more a rich-person's sport, with the divide continuously widening.

Bollocks ! (Humm...seem to have made that quote elsewhere )

None other than Al Nagler said "the best view you can get from a telescope or eyepiece it the one that frames it best"

Sure, if you want a super high resolution image of small galaxy or planetary nebula, you probably need a Hubble variant complete with adaptive optics. Sorry, that's just physics....and the current commercial reality is that is going to cost...and even if you do have the required gear: yep, nice narrow field shot, but technical excellence aside, does it have that something extra? that "wow" factor?

BUT...there are many possible subjects, that can be captured in fields of view, from horizon to horizon, to a few degrees, that need nothing expensive or high-tech. Just a good eye and good planning, technique and modest budget.

The cool thing about the gear available today, is it doesn't have to be a rich persons pursuit. Sure, state of the art gear is going to cost you, but last time I checked, it did not produce award winning images all by itself

Probably my 50 cents worth now..

[AJames]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Bollocks ! (Humm...seem to have made that quote elsewhere )
None other than Al Nagler said "the best view you can get from a telescope or eyepiece it the one that frames it best"
Sure, if you want a super high resolution image of small galaxy or planetary nebula, you probably need a Hubble variant complete with adaptive optics. Sorry, that's just physics....and the current commercial reality is that is going to cost...and even if you do have the required gear: yep, nice narrow field shot, but technical excellence aside, does it have that something extra? that "wow" factor?
BUT...there are many possible subjects, that can be captured in fields of view, from horizon to horizon, to a few degrees, that need nothing expensive or high-tech. Just a good eye and good planning, technique and modest budget.
The cool thing about the gear available today, is it doesn't have to be a rich persons pursuit. Sure, state of the art gear is going to cost you, but last time I checked, it did not produce award winning images all by itself
Probably my 50 cents worth now..

Peter,
When I first read this I was a little miffed, mainly because I thought I've already have defended in this particular thread - especially much of what you have implied in your response. Instead took the adage "think before your post." I did.
Firstly, I agree with much of what you say. In fact, I often feel like for much of my astronomical life to be a defender of such attitudes. There is no doubt astronomy can be done on a shoestring, and that literally anybody can can obtain visual or photographic or CCD images. Ie. The Moon for example. I encourage any newbees to do so.
However, this is dancing around the issue, as we are talking about really image competition where there is a huge range of haves and have nots. Yet unlike what you say here, there are hidden costs, such as travel (petrol) costs to and from observing sites, etc. Most (majority males) who are not single, without mortgages or family commitments, and who have disposable income to support their interests.
I also still think, like our whole Society in general, that were are too culture obsessed with promoting and congratulating the biggest, the fastest, or record breaking rather than celebrating the achievement based on modest costs or degrees of difficulty. Why should amateur astronomy be any different?
What do I more fear (IMO) is that some of the high-rollers of the amateur astros are more seeking self affirmation or kudos for their outlays rather an open honest appraisal of their works. If they are doing this for egotistical gain, well in doing so, all they generate competition more as "mate against mate." (Hence my "sport" comment in my previous post.) This is why IMO that monetary prizes are meaningless unless it assists the amateur improving his or her skills.
As for Al Nagler, well the last time I saw the cost of one of his eyepieces, I felt I need to take out a bank loan to afford one - whose price was comparable to a modest sized telescope with all the trimmings! Frankly, the most expensive eyepiece (my very own "Precious") I have is a truly beautiful 26mm French Clavé Plössl, which reveals contrast on a scale nothing seen elsewhere, and has been used much in doing planetary nebula observations. It cost about $200 US in 1990 dollars. It is the best piece - jewel in the crown) of astronomical equipment I personally own. Clearly it is probably out of the ball park for most amateur to have such a beasty, but does it mean that because of it my observations are to be adjudged better or worst than someone else.
So IMO I do think an competition among astros should be both performance and "artistic" based, as well as assessing the ways in which the image was obtained. In this case, I think some motives have been objectified in the ASNSWI's rules and the judging committee. If they are doing this - then all is well and good. Whether they are doing this or not has it onus solely on entrants themselves. If you are unhappy with the rules, then don't enter.

This might indeed be "bollocks", as you most eloquently put, but I think this is closer to being true. (though I still might be wrong! ).

... Just another 50 cents worth.

(At this rate we will be able to buy something even better! )

Andrew

Note: I have removed some my previous post relating to the ASNSWI, which may have caused some offence, and for the sake of harmony I have removed it.

[Peter Ward]

Maybe, Maybe not. I for one have a serious personal investment in Astro-gear but have never entered the ANSW comp, hence I can only assume the argument below doesn't apply to myself of like minded "high-rollers"

True, I do enter another well known comp, but for totally different reasons.

Sure equipment can make a difference, but counts little for creativity, composition and sheer effort in capturing of the many amazing objects that grace our skies.

Originally Posted by AJames

What do I more fear (IMO) is that some of the high-rollers of the amateur astros are more seeking self affirmation or kudos for their outlays rather an open honest appraisal of their works.

[xstream (John)]

Thread closed at the request of the originator.