A Monthly DSO challenge?

[mldee (Mike)]

Moving right along.......OK, I like Mental's approach, KISS and Adam's comments on a value system is probably the easiest way to kick off.

I'm unsure of how we should organise this. As this years culprit on reviving the concept, I don't mind starting the thread in DSO Imaging, which seems like a good place for it. We'll worry about how to include planetary and solar as we go along. I'd especially like to include eventually planetary as it gives an inclusion for the Toucam and small refractor crowd to strut their skills as well.

Before posting the new thread, I would certainly appreciate inputs on what info should be in the initial thread.

I would suggest, just based on my gear being pretty typical, that the eqpt categories be based purely on cost to the user, within reason. If high end gear is readily available at serious discount, then to me it's just more of the bang for the buck info that we need to see. All my scopes are used, but unfortunately no AP or RCOS's in amongst them. The cost equation should just include Scope, mount/tripod and imaging device, including Hyperstar/FF/FR mods?

I see little relevance in including other accessories such as PC, finders, Obs eqpt etc. If goto was part of the original price, then it gets included in the price. As Argo is basically a time saver, I don't think it needs to be included for the Dob boys.

Software? Probably too hard and better ignored.

Just a simple "Total rig cost". Say, under $1K, 2K, 5K, 10K and >10K? Too many?

Info on eqpt and imaging techniques used to be included in each image post.

DSO categories for nominated objects: (Easy to hard) Nebulas, Clusters, Galaxies, Wide field, Other strange objects.......?

Challenge open to all, monthly frequency, results by thread vote?

Sidonio's allowed? As long as it's with the same gear, why not?

Additional C&C...?

[rogerg (Roger)]

I really enjoyed the challenges when they came up. Not sure I'd enjoy competition so much. The challenges were very fun and constructive for everyone involved, competitions would never be fair. But hey, give it a go if you want

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Does it need to be a competition? A challenge might be seen less intimidating.

Maybe to start keep the concept simple- got a camera, scope and mount, show us a picture.

The technical aspects can be, should be, could be (need concensis) included. Not for bragging rights, but for informed critique.

Sidonio's can come and play. It makes for a comparison to aspire to.

The object selection I think is the exciting part. It one month be object specific, other times theme specific, another time gear cost specific. This widens the posibilities and helps keep it fresh and relevant.

For the 'toucam' fraternity, then another month could be their's, or even run concurrently. There's an idea- who can get a month's worth of lunar shots to show is libration!

What this needs to be is inclusive. That is what I like about the obs. challenge. It aims to appeal to all levels of experience and gear. It aims to encourage and foster participation. Everyones ego can be stroked this way.

That is why I suggested Eta Carina. Something for everyone- do with it what you will.

[mldee (Mike)]

I just realised the thread header still said 'Competition'. I've now changed it to 'Challenge'. I had simply used competition because it was the first related word that came into my head.

Perhaps we're looking at this from slightly different aspects. I see the intent of the thread to be a fun means of "gaining knowledge" in basic imaging, and less of a "challenge for neat photos". I feel the present imaging section handles that aspect quite well.

This is the reasoning behind my inputs on the basic technical aspects and focus on imaging just one object at a time. As you mentioned, the Eta Carina region has a bunch of different subjects within it. My preference, which may not be others', would be to actually keep the monthly subject matter pretty narrow. Eg, one Messier object. The intent of this is to highlight to participants the advantages and limitations of various eqpt setups. Also gives some encouragement to the participants not to go for the "easy way" wider field stuff (sorry folks!) but to try their hardest to capture that one nominated object as best they can. Obviously the object should be one that is reasonable easy to image with cheap and cheerful gear at that time of the year.

Also helps one to get on a first name basis with individual Messier objects, their locations and imaging peculiarities.

It's just a different approach, but my preference. When we run out of convenient objects, then there's always the Bigger-sky stuff as Mental suggests.

Anyway, more C&C?...

[DavidTrap (David)]

My 2cents worth:

if you're after "audience participation", why not scratch the "cost" categories, at least initially.

See if there is interest in the concept?

Why not have a template to standardize the info given about an image, eg.
Scope: (+/- reducers/flatteners)
Imaging device:
Mount:
Guiding:
Exposure details:
Stacking method:
Summary of post processing:

All of the above could be extremely educational, rather than competitive. Give people a forum into which to display their images and compare them to others - something to aspire to...

If it becomes bigger than Ben Hur, then work out what categories suit to divide the field into reasonable groups, and then open the challenge to "voting".

Cheers
David T

[allan gould]

I think it may be interesting if people denoted exactly what equipment they used. Then the inexperienced could see - Hmm thats the field I would get through an ED80, or thats the difference between an expensive APO and an ED scope, or different fields of view from different scopes, or if I upgraded to that CCD from my DSLR or had it modded that what I could expect and is it worth it?
Or I was thinking of upgrading my mount but he's/she's using the same and its carrying the same load and they have great round stars etc.

[mldee (Mike)]

Originally Posted by allan gould

I think it may be interesting if people denoted exactly what equipment they used. Then the inexperienced could see - Hmm thats the field I would get through an ED80, or thats the difference between an expensive APO and an ED scope, or different fields of view from different scopes, or if I upgraded to that CCD from my DSLR or had it modded that what I could expect and is it worth it?
Or I was thinking of upgrading my mount but he's/she's using the same and its carrying the same load and they have great round stars etc.

This is more in line with what I was thinking.

David - The template concept is good. I have no real problem with not having a "cost" category, my intent there was simply to illustrate to the cheap and cheerful crowd what sort of expenditure was probably needed to get what sort of results, and the relative performance values of new vs used gear.

As to the 'voting' aspect. My feeling is that if it gave it a competitive aspect, agreed, it probably would scare some potential participants away. OTOH, a "x out of 10" "score" from one's peers may be helpful in self evaluation. It doesn't have to be a contest.

There could be a bunch of folks all getting the same "score" for a particular object. Equipment used and image quality should both be factors in the score. Scoring probably the least important of my concerns though.

Again, C&C...

[adman (Adam)]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

Why not have a template to standardize the info given about an image

yep - I like this idea as well. Just a plain vanilla "here's my picture, and this is what I used to take it" approach.

much more inclusive and informative, less competitive and intimidating

Adam

[MrB (Simon)]

The first thing that stood out for me when checking the first thread linked in Andrews Post above(about this being an idea tried at various times before),
is the difference in the colours of each persons image, very interesting.

I'm intrigued by the idea of an 'open' monthly DSO challenge.
May even post an image or two myself
No competition at all, just people posting images to the same thread to compare results.
No banter though, maybe two threads, one for images and basic equipment info, the other for discussion. That way every post has an image and the thread remains uncluttered like the monthly Photo Challange in the terrestrial section which has worked so well for so long.
Anyone else find it strange? That the terrestrial photo thread can go so well on an Astro forum but we can't get a basic one going for astro subjects?

EDIT:
I've only ever posted one image before, back when I got my DSLR.
But, if this gets off the ground, I'm going to PROMISE that I will post an image of the subject for at least the first 3 months! No matter how crappy my images may be! There, you have it in writing


(My only disclaimer: If the subjects are within the capabilities of my equipment)


Roger seems pretty keen too

[bert (Brett)]

I like Dave Trapps model Except the voting. I'll definetly be in on it

Brett

[DavidTrap (David)]

For the record, I'm not that keen on voting.

DT

[Rob_K]

For what it's worth, I have some experience in the 'challenge' concept, having co-moderated a small Yahoo group with a monthly challenge. Not DSOs, but moon features. Much more difficult targets because you might only have one or two short windows a month to image the target.

Success or not depends largely on the spirit in which the challenge is conducted, and this really comes down to the members. We have two sections, simply gear worth over $2k & gear worth under $2k (US). There have only been a couple of queries on this in the whole time it has been running, again a sign of the good spirit operating. It is generally accepted that the under 2k section is for novice imagers with limited gear (or lousy imagers such as myself ), while the over 2k section is for experienced imagers or new imagers who want to start with all the bells & whistles.

Entries vary, ranging from 8-10 per month down to zero, especially if the Nth American members were clouded out on the crucial days! A standard entry form has to be submitted with each entry - this details the equipment used (scope, camera etc), date, name, plus space for notes on sky conditions etc. The features have to be imaged within the calendar month and submitted within a few days of the end of the month. Polls are then set up and the images voted on by members. In a tie, we now call it a draw rather than have a 'vote-off'. Winning images become the 'group photo' on the home page, the nearest we get to a prize!

It has been very satisfying to run. There has been a fair turnover of entrants over the years and one of the great things has been seeing complete novices enter, and over time watching their imaging & processing improve. Some very good imagers have entered at times, often submitting images that would be considered sub-par, simply because of the sky conditions during the tight windows of opportunities. But that's part of the challenge, and also shows that the people involved were not terribly precious about reputations & all that stuff. It's all about doing the best possible job in available conditions.

Anyway, the challenge has been going for over four years now (with ups & downs), so that's gotta say something!

What would worry me doing this in a large forum like IIS is that if you get even a relatively small number of people treating it too competitively you will constantly get the challenge challenged (he understated the value of his gear, she imaged it outside the month etc). Ever more complex rules will have to be developed & policed, and it will be a nightmare to run.

If people enter in the spirit of fun and learning, then there will be no problems. So the question is: IISers, are you up to the challenge?

Cheers -

[Rob_K]

Just a little extra on voting - if you are going to select winners by members' vote, then there is the risk of bloc-voting where members vote for their favourite imager or best mate rather than the best image. We've had little problem with this, but I know that it happens with lots of other imaging competitions. And it's not hard to see when it occurs.

Maybe DavidTrap's thinking along the right lines here...

Cheers -

[MrB (Simon)]

No vote is my vote

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

If voting happens, it will get ugly.

Two sections according to gear cost, like Rob-K suggests, might be as far as a distinction that should be made. <$2k, and > $2k. It could well give the boys with toys the space they would like, and remove some of the angst.

An 'official entry form' like DavidTrap suggests is good, I said it earlier. Just to give the challenge a standard to go by.

Give it a go?

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by mental4astro

If voting happens, it will get ugly.

Two sections according to gear cost, like Rob-K suggests, might be as far as a distinction that should be made. <$2k, and > $2k. It could well give the boys with toys the space they would like, and remove some of the angst.

An 'official entry form' like DavidTrap suggests is good, I said it earlier. Just to give the challenge a standard to go by.

Give it a go?

Yep, a bit like the monthly observing challenge - there's no winner for the "best visual observation of the month", LOL, just sharing your efforts. No doubt a bit cutsie-cuddly for the alpha males on IIS (you know who you are! ), but why does everything have to be a competition?

Cheers -

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

mldee,

Would you like to start the thread? As I know nothing about imaging, I would not want to sound too dumb and lower the value of the Monthly Challenge.

What would the first target be for this month? I do recommend a single target as it gives a common comparison point.

My contribution to the Challenge could be an input to the object selection. Technical analysis, nil. Aesthetic evaluation, think Matt Perston. I'll even wear a cravatt, .

[mldee (Mike)]

Originally Posted by mental4astro

If voting happens, it will get ugly.

Two sections according to gear cost, like Rob-K suggests, might be as far as a distinction that should be made. <$2k, and > $2k. It could well give the boys with toys the space they would like, and remove some of the angst.

An 'official entry form' like DavidTrap suggests is good, I said it earlier. Just to give the challenge a standard to go by.

Give it a go?

Agreed. Voting simply to choose a winner would probably get ugly and also be a PITA extra task to administer.

I personally don't mind the idea of an "x out of 10" score that members could award to individual images. The intent being to provide some level of objectivity to a contributor's image, with both quality and eqpt cost being factors. If members think that would incur too much embarrassment for some contributors, so be it, but adding a little flavour to the mix may be more enjoyable than plain vanilla every time, and it does give contributors their own personal benchmark from which to try and improve as the months go by.

On the cost sections, I would suggest three; <2K, 2-5K, and >5K. My reasoning being that a lot of potential cheap and cheerfuls ( me included) will almost exceed the $2K just by buying a cheap cooled CCD, whereas budget DSLR-based eqpt setups could probably still scrape into the <2K category.

My EQ6, used C8 and a QHY8 would probably fit the description of many members' setups. This would be firmly in the 2-5K section. The Taks and Losmandy owners would mostly then come into the >5K, and one would hope this extra cost would be reflected for members in the overall quality (or not) of their images.....

Keep in mind that I'm trying to describe this cost aspect from the viewpoint of bang for the buck info for members, not from a 'how much did that image cost' standpoint, if that makes sense..

I'm a little wary of how much actual administration involvement this type of forum would entail, never having done such before, and being inherently lazy. For this reason, I feel it would require at least 2-3 members to participate in running it. All suggestions on this aspect gratefully received.

So to summarise; Seems quite a few members would like to see and participate in such a forum, but without any pure competitive structure. Supporting info should be entry-form-based, with defined eqpt cost sections and based on imaging a specific Messier-type object on a monthly basis.

Any further inputs before we decide the next step?

[DavidTrap (David)]

"Realistically" considering the "full retail" price of equipment, I'd suggest that there wouldn't be too many setups in digital astrophotography under $2K - especially if one throws in autoguiding.

Eg for a hypothetical setup: HEQ5 ~1250, ED80~500, DSLR ~500, Finderguider ~100, Modified Webcam ~100, Interface Boxes ~100, mounting plates ~100, t-adaptors & other bits ~100 = $2750. I'm not wanting to start an argument here on prices - I've guestimated many of these to illustrate my point, but I think they are reasonable numbers.

Any "fair" classification on price would have to reflect "full retail price", not what you bought it for second-hand - otherwise someone will claim their mate bought an AP mount and sold it to them for a dollar!

If you really want to "divide" the field, why not do a simple <$5K or >$5K. I'd hope this would separate modest vs expensive gear and achieve your aim, and also avoid arguments from people trying to claim their setup falls in the <$2k category.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter - from my point of view the project is designed to get people imaging a similar object and comparing their results in the hope of learning something and improving. I'm sure people with less expensive gear will regularly outperform my images, but I want to be in this to learn and improve.

DT

[Octane (Humayun)]

You could do the ultimate challenge, and, that is for everything that is submitted to be anonymous. No details, nothing.

Judge the image for the image itself, and, not who or what took it.

I don't think this idea will fly on this forum as it was scrapped in the terrestrial imaging section. I know, I know, there's administrative overheads when it comes to these sorts of things.

H