Grave concerns over the 2008 Astro Imaging competition at SPSP - Page 2

Bassnut (Fred) · #21 13-02-2008, 09:52 PM

Global-Rent-A-Scope, pay, then click to image ;-). http://www.global-rent-a-scope.com/

AJames · #22 13-02-2008, 09:54 PM

Aside from these machinations pertaining to the SPSP, does any one known of astronomical writings, field sketching or even written description competitions?

Perhaps I could enter that?

turbo_pascale (Rob) · #23 13-02-2008, 10:07 PM

GRAS = Global Rent A Scope - http://www.global-rent-a-scope.com/

Peter Ward · #24 13-02-2008, 10:52 PM

Yep...gets a bit fuzzy....

Was Rob McNaught an amateur when he took a snap of his comet with a Canon DSLR?....or would that only count if he used the UK Schmidt?

Therein lies the rub. I suspect unless use an "institutional telescope" (read really big telescopes that belong to Universities etc.) then you are an "amateur" ie taking images for the love of it, not for a paycheque or research paper.

dugnsuz (Doug) · #25 13-02-2008, 10:56 PM

I'm sure the guys at SPSP will judge each entry on its own merits...
ED80 or Keck!
Doug

space oddity · #26 13-02-2008, 11:01 PM

A competition should be about skill, but then again, choice of equipment is part of that skill. As the skill component includes guiding, polar alignment, perhaps fixed pier initial setup, GRAS images are not in the spirit of the competition as these important and technically demanding aspects have not been the exclusive work of the entrant. Perhaps a weighting system could be in place to allow the less cashed up entrants to be able to compete with the Tak / SBIG brigade. This would test Greg's skill at weighting!

Perhaps, extra or different categories could be in place on the basis of rig cost eg under 5 K rig, 5-10 K up to house mortgage cost rig. This will reward the resourcsefull for their skill of setting up on the cheap as well as technical and aesthetic skill ie apples competing against apples. Oh for the good old days of 35mm photography competitions when it was application of some pretty basic technical/ equipment skills combined with a large dash of aesthetic /compositional skill.

AJames · #27 13-02-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by space oddity

A competition should be about skill, but then again, choice of equipment is part of that skill. As the skill component includes guiding, polar alignment, perhaps fixed pier initial setup, GRAS images are not in the spirit of the competition as these important and technically demanding aspects have not been the exclusive work of the entrant. Perhaps a weighting system could be in place to allow the less cashed up entrants to be able to compete with the Tak / SBIG brigade. This would test Greg's skill at weighting!

Perhaps, extra or different categories could be in place on the basis of rig cost eg under 5 K rig, 5-10 K up to house mortgage cost rig. This will reward the resourcsefull for their skill of setting up on the cheap as well as technical and aesthetic skill ie apples competing against apples. Oh for the good old days of 35mm photography competitions when it was application of some pretty basic technical/ equipment skills combined with a large dash of aesthetic /compositional skill.

Too right. However, I just wish they were more polite.

For me, give us a Polaroid Camera any day...NO. I've heard they aren't gonna make the film anymore... OK....
How about instead a 2 megapixal digital camera, 20cm maximum aperture, two bullets, and a bottle of whiskey...
OR BETTER STILL
Just the best picture taken ONLY at the Star Party!

bojan · #28 14-02-2008, 10:49 AM

Personally, I believe that those competitions are meaningless.
They do favor big and expensive equipment, and that's it.
The skill and knowledge defintely does play a role here, but no skill can help to get a better photo without adequate tracking or if someone has cheap & poor lens.
I like the idea of a challenge.. like what Ajames suggested.
Like, try to take a photo of a standard object (not M42, but something more difficult, and the same for everyone) with some standard equipment and that should be a condition of entry to a competition. Only then we are comparing apples with apples: the actual skills of competitors are in the game.

iceman (Mike) · #29 14-02-2008, 11:08 AM

I don't think they're a waste of time. Yes there's issues and nothing is perfect, but there'll always be someone with bigger and better equipment.

Winning isn't important to me (though it's nice and I certainly enter to win) - mostly I enjoy the motivation to capture and present an image in the best possible way. It encourages you to think more about composition, object choice, content, framing, presentation - going that extra step to set your image apart from everyone else.

It makes me a better astrophotographer.

davidpretorius · #30 14-02-2008, 11:22 AM

Handicapping is easy

1. mark out the field of play, ie where all the imaging scopes will go
2. then from one end to the other, water drench the field according to the $$ value of the mount.

Ie tascos on eq1 and afocal digicams are on hard ground..........rcx400 and max mounts basically start to sink in quicksand as soon as the crane unloads it.

bojan · #31 14-02-2008, 11:34 AM

But, Mike, if winning is not important, and presentation is, you do not need competitions like that. BTW, you already have this forum and your website to present your work.
Think of it as application of Olympic principles: If we have a 100metres run, all runners are placed in the SAME condition at the start line, and they run after the start signal.
THIS is the fair competition, where skill, determination and endurance and speed is accouted for IMHO, of course.
But if steroids, wings or booster rockets are allowed here, what would you think about that kind of Olympic games?

avandonk · #32 14-02-2008, 11:47 AM

I for a short time thought that when Hubble started finally producing stunning images after it got its 'specs' that it was pointless to image from the ground. How could we compete even with an 8 meter scope?

How wrong I was! Imaging has never been more accessible for the amateur.

I get the greatest enjoyment out of doing better with practice with the equipment I have. Not only am I trying out or developing better processing methods I am also having a lot of fun modifying 'cheaper' equipment to get it to perform better. I have no qualms about cutting 100mm from the tube of a 100ED. I think I would be shot at dawn for doing the same to a TAK 150mm APO! Although if I had one, and it would make it a better performer?

I have never entered any astro imaging competition as an 8x10" print does not do the sort of images I do (wide fields) any real justice. Even an A1 size print does not show the detail that is inherently there. So does that mean all entered prints should be A1 size?

By all means enter any competition as everybody is equally subject to the rules. All h0ughy was trying to do was get some sort of clarification of the rules.

I am sure that the choosing of the judges is far more important than the base rules. Any competition that was perceived to be unfair would soon wither due to lack of entries.

Meanwhile we should all keep practicing instead of quibbling. I know I need to!

Bert

AJames · #33 14-02-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Priestley

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.
Cheers, Greg Priestley

Oh Dear. Yeah. Concrete is only any good, only if it is set and you have both your feet in it!

However, although you might know where you stand, really the biggest problem is getting the heavy block over the guard rail to throw it into the river...

tornado33 · #34 14-02-2008, 02:05 PM

I agree, Bert. Its so much fun seeing images from gear I have that werent possible when I first got it.
Scott

Satchmo · #35 14-02-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

I have never entered any astro imaging competition as an 8x10" print does not do the sort of images I do (wide fields) any real justice. Even an A1 size print does not show the detail that is inherently there. So does that mean all entered prints should be A1 size?

If I recall correctly, ASNSW judges do request the submission of a full resolution digital file for examination as well as a paper print.

Rodstar (Rod) · #36 14-02-2008, 07:54 PM

When I read the rule that HOughy is referring to, I assumed it was in response to something that happened last year when a person submitted an image that combined data they had collected on an object with data ANOTHER person had collected on the same object. If that is the intent of the rule, it seems reasonable to me that a person be limited to submitting only their own data, and not someone else's.

Although on one view it may seem a bit arbitrary, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Having said that, I think there should be more collaboration in the sharing of astronomical image data within the amateur community. The combined efforts of a few can often exceed the sum of the parts.

Peter Ward · #37 14-02-2008, 11:29 PM

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 shot the cover of this month's AS&T using a ED80mm APO, a Manfrotto tripod and Pentax DSLR. Hardly and expensive ensemble.

Some absolutely fabulous planetary images can be taken with nothing more than a modest scope, 5x barlow and $200 webcam.

Current DSLR's have come a long way, are very affordable and can be used to take excellent deep sky imagery.

Expensive gear simply makes the job easier, O.K. sometimes a lot easier.. (e.g. autoguiding), but you still have to get all the focus/tracking/framing/shadow detail/etc/etc. elements right no matter how expensive the rig.

montewilson (Monte) · #38 15-02-2008, 02:33 PM

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 understand the challenges involved in pleasing everyone.

Monte Wilson
Secretary
ASNSW

Rodstar (Rod) · #39 15-02-2008, 02:40 PM

Thanks Monte, Greg, and all those who work so hard to make the SPSP such a fabulous event. I for one take off my hat to you.

h0ughy (David) · #40 15-02-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodstar

Thanks Monte, Greg, and all those who work so hard to make the SPSP such a fabulous event. I for one take off my hat to you.

Yes I do agree a lot of work does go into it.

Monte,

I do understand the processes that would have happened to get to a point where the rules were released, but I make no apology for my interpretation. That was how I read it. SO my apologies go to you and Greg for making you fret about this thread. It was not the intention nor the direction. Merely making a discussion of a topic