The philosopy of astro imaging

[troypiggo (Troy)]

Jeez, so many people using the word "journey" - I thought for a minute I was watching "Biggest Loser" or "Australian Idol". Hahaha.

[avandonk]

My "journey" really began when I started at Kodak Research Laboratories in 1968. The hierarchy deigned that I should learn sensitometry, densitometry and human colour perception. I then worked for CSIRO for thirty years in one of the top labs in the world. In my twilight years I am using all the knowledge gained over a lifetime.

To equate this with a bunch of morons on a TV show is distasteful to say the least.

troypiggo you are very obviously just at the start of your 'journey' and you do have a lot to learn and understand.


Bert

[troypiggo (Troy)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

My "journey" really began when I started at Kodak Research Laboratories in 1968. The hierarchy deigned that I should learn sensitometry, densitometry and human colour perception. I then worked for CSIRO for thirty years in one of the top labs in the world. In my twilight years I am using all the knowledge gained over a lifetime.

To equate this with a bunch of morons on a TV show is distasteful to say the least.

troypiggo you are very obviously just at the start of your 'journey' and you do have a lot to learn and understand.

Bert

Bert, sorry mate. You've misunderstood my "journey" comment. The only similarity I was drawing between those TV shows and this thread was the use of the term "journey" a lot. Every episode that I've watched of those shows someone says "journey". The "hahahah" and the smiley was intended to tip you off that it was a light-hearted comment not to be taken seriously. I meant no disrespect to anyone posting here, and certainly don't think I said anything distasteful.

There's no doubt I'm new to all things astro, and I don't pretend to be anything but. Even at subjects that I am learned and knowledgeable about, I am still humble enough to accept that I'll continue to build on that knowledge. Despite what my mummy says, I'm not perfect.

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by cwjohn

... Ergo I conclude satisfaction is NOT about the end product (to wit the image) per se.
... Ergo I conclude the satisfaction is NOT about learning about astronomy.
... Ergo I conclude that the satisfaction does not lie significantly with the comraderie.
... ergo the lower cost solution is the more challenging ergo surely the lower cost solution will give the most satisfaction. Unfortunately, this does not accord with my personal experience.

...What I would like to hear from other imagers is an answer to the fundamental philosophical question “What do I really enjoy about astroimaging, and how do I go about maximising that enjoyment”. Cheers
Chris

Great thread Chris - and I love your reductionist approach to this question - you must be a scientist! . (No worries, I was one of those too once! (ex-CSIRO))

Journey, destination I hear people say?.... who cares!! Everything we do requires a journey and there is always a destination so using these words to describe why we image the night sky is totally inadequate IMO. It belies the passion and wonder most of us feel when we look up on a dark night.

This is how it was for me. I wanted to take world class amateur deep sky astroimages! Why? because I've dreamt of doing that since I was 10. Why? Because I've always been in awe of the scale and majesty of this universe and passionate about wanting to capture a teensy little piece of it, in all it's glory, for myself and to share with others.

Ergo, my rationale is actually the contrary of your first conclusion. Do I enjoy buying, playing with, using and talking about telescopes? Yes. Do I enjoy spending endless hours on a computer with processing software to refine techniques and get the image just right? Well, of course, I enjoy the journey. But without being able to produce a top class image at the end, the journey would be pointless and I hate doing something for nothing.

Cheers, Marcus

[cwjohn (Chris)]

All good responses. Yes it seems that there are a lot of journeys going on together with a lot of motherhood statements expressed.

I was hoping for as KRudd says a little more programatic specifity, but that is obviously my fault in the way I expressed the question.

Take for example the humble astronomical equatorial mount. Now I have owned a GM8, G11, Titan, EM-200, HEQ 5 so I know a little about the subject.

The HEQ6, the most sold mount in the world is on the face of all things that matter at $2K a godsend. It integrates nicely into a holistic system. it has bags of software support and nicely managed and mollykoddled it seems to do the job really well, but invariably at a certain weight point, which we wont argue here it seems to struggle and in conversations I see many imagers expressing a good deal of frustration. One of my current mounts the Tak Em-200 is smaller than the HEQ6 but I seem to be able to stack weight on it with almost no limit and it performs well. Unfortunately it is pretty much a dog to integrate into a holisitic system. Unquestionably you get what you pay for but also unquestionably the cost goes up exponentially in terms of performance gained.

It is not my intent in saying this to address the cost vs performance benefits of mounts as I know this has been dealt with in other threads. My intent is to explore the philosopy of why we consider these alternative strategies.

You could equally apply this to many other aspects of astro imaging. For instance Wodaski and deReght have a nice dialogue on Wodaski's site (I think) on the relative merits of high end optics vs Meade integrated optics although I notice they both opt for astro cooled cameras. The point is that de Reght argues that there is just as much satisfaction from making the flaky Meade system image friendly than Ron gains from his high end equipment.

Certainly, from my perspective in graduating from an EM-200 to a Losmandy Titan I found the upgrade to be highly satisfying in terms of performance, integration and weight bearing capacity and this enhanced satisfaction markedly. Interestingly I sold the Titan (which I regret) and kept the EM-200 because it was a lighter and more portable mount.

Further the issue of optics always fascinates me in that simple math in regard to the perfect optic will determine that there is little to be gained given certain seeing conditions beyond a certain aperture, and often CCD pixel sizes poorly match the optic. In this regard one is prone to ask "what is the motivating factor here because it aint rigourous scientific analysis" but anyway I digress.

I would be interested in finding out the answer to this question. If you inherited $100K and had no mortgage and a wife who made no claims to it (an impossibility I know but lets assume for the sake of the exercise) and you had no current equipment, how much would you devote to astroimaging, what would you buy in general rather than specific terms and why and when I say why what exactly are you attempting to approve or achieve?

As some responders have noted here philosophical navel gazing is not part of their psyche to wit they are classic existentialists, but there may be some out there who are prepared to spend 5 minutes contemplating this question.

Thanks in advance

Chris

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by cwjohn

All good responses. Yes it seems that there are a lot of journeys going on together with a lot of motherhood statements expressed.

I was hoping for as KRudd says a little more programatic specifity, but that is obviously my fault in the way I expressed the question.

Take for example the humble astronomical equatorial mount. Now I have owned a GM8, G11, Titan, EM-200, HEQ 5 so I know a little about the subject. ...

...
I would be interested in finding out the answer to this question. If you inherited $100K and had no mortgage and a wife who made no claims to it (an impossibility I know but lets assume for the sake of the exercise) and you had no current equipment, how much would you devote to astroimaging, what would you buy in general rather than specific terms and why and when I say why what exactly are you attempting to approve or achieve?

....
Chris

You're now asking a completely different question Chris. The first philosophical question seemed to be what do you enjoy about astroimaging and why? - an easy question to answer. This second one seems to be what equipment would you buy!? There's hardly a philosophical point to make here as most people spend what they can afford according to what goal they have. What's your goal?

In any case $100k is enough to indulge this hobby to a reasonably high standard for most goals!

Cheers, Marcus

[Moon (James)]

The problem is choice, the red pill or the blue pill? There is no formula with an answer for you.
It's your free will and you will be morally accountable if you spend vast sums of money. Just as you will be morally accountable if you choose a cheap mount that does not satisfy you! You can ask me what I think, and I will say call Mr Ward and spend $60K of your $100k. But I don't have to live with your decision do I?

Let me ask you this question: If you bought an EQ6 it did not perform as you wanted, how long before you upgraded to a Titan again? Would this process of testing out, trying to fix and finally eliminating the EQ6, ordering and taking the delivery of the Titan bring you satisfaction? Or would you be upset that you lost money on the EQ6 and wasted some time?

Ergo I conclude the satisfaction is NOT about learning about astronomy

Maybe this is true, but perhaps your satisfaction IS about learning about Astrophotography.

[cwjohn (Chris)]

Marcus

Actually my orignal question was "What do I really enjoy about astroimaging, and how do I go about maximising that enjoyment."

Most people responded to the first part because as you said "it is easy to answer" but none really answered the second part which was my stated intent. My fault admittedly because I did not define the question specifically. I am attempting to do so here.

It appears to me that in starting the hobby one makes an assessment of the necessary resources applicable to the hobby. Then as one progresses there are a series of choices which one makes in terms of return vs satisfaction which plainly revolve around resource. Having posed this question many times I get a clear sense that most people cannot rationalise these decisions clearly.

For instance you already leap to the assumption that on inheriting $100K you would spend it all on astroimaging. Is this in fact the case. I certainly would not. I have many other interests upon which these funds would be allocated. If I inherited $100K I would immediately allocate funds to a number of activies and come to some conclusions as to general approaches and goals that I could achieve in the astro imaging sector. So would I spend $10K, $20K, $30K and examine how would this expenditure impact my enjoyment in the hobby. It seems to me that this gives a more practical insight into how people maximise their enjoyment. Possibly my thought processes are unique in this regard. If so nothing venture, nothing gained.

I hope that helps.
Chris

[cwjohn (Chris)]

James

"morally accountable" - to whom. I dont quite see where morals come into the equation. Certainly fiscally accountable to oneself and to family.

The question you pose is a complex one. It entirely depends on the reason WHY I bought the EQ6. The EQ6 may be merely a means to an end in terms of a greater holistic goal, or in fact it may be a matter of attempting to push the boundaries that much further than the specifications. There could be a strong argument that the enjoyment is derived from the setting of the goal and the subsequent achievement of that goal.

As I said all existentialists feel free to pass this thread by. I am just the sort of person who tends to self examine why he does what he does. Understanding those of a similar mind helps to understand ones own though processes in this regard.

[Jim McAloon]

Back to the original question...

It’s a challenge – given the interest in astronomy, the question is, what can I do with the equipment I have (which is reasonably good midrange stuff, yes, Imaging Source, Canon 300D, Synta, Orion, Guan Sheng, and Celestron). This applies both visually and photographically. Nothing is ‘achieved’ by making out 3C273 in a ten inch dob, but it feels good to have done so. It’s also nice, again and again, to go back to the Silver Coin and think of Caroline Herschel, or to look at dozens of bright and familiar objects, as well as fainter objects observed for the first time.

So far as planetary and lunar imaging are concerned, as with all the nature photography I do as well, the first question is, does the image make me think, yes, that’s got it. The criteria are usually very different, of course, between nature and astrophotography, but not entirely. Technical excellence is a big part of it – sharpness, detail, and so on, but I hope for something just a little bit different. There is always the outside chance of seeing something significant on the giant planets, as well. But visual appeal is a significant part of it, as also is the fact that it’s my image, no one else’s. That applies particularly with a widely photographed event like a lunar eclipse, and I am even attached to my colour negative images of Comet McNaught (after that, I bought a 300D!).

When looking at others’ deep sky images of familiar objects, I look for something that makes me think, yes, that makes me see M42 or whatever just a little bit differently. The handful of deep sky images I have taken have been about learning the tricks, and developing the skills. But the intention is to take images which I, at least, find pleasing.

The use of relatively modest equipment, purchased incrementally, is a personal preference, but only in terms of what I can justify to myself in terms of my own ethics and priorities, including how much time astronomy gets among all the other things I do.

keep looking up!

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by cwjohn

Marcus

... a series of choices which one makes in terms of return vs satisfaction which plainly revolve around resource. Having posed this question many times I get a clear sense that most people cannot rationalise these decisions clearly.

Chris

Im not sure that is the case Chris. 1st, isnt satisfaction the return?, why the "vs".

And I dont think satisfaction is based on "resource". Ive been lucky enough to experience both ends of the resource expence equation, and I found satisfaction at a given time has little to do with expence, it can be very satisfing to get the max out of what you have. In fact extracting the most from the least, can be very satisfing indeed, despite the urge for better gear generally.

Having said that, it is human nature to progress from your last triumph to something better, which often involves more expence, to maintain the satisfaction level (I hope that makes sense ).

Satisfaction is a fluid thing, that changes and matures over time,with funds, expectations and experience, you cant materially quantify it down to a particular time meaningfully (ie as a question right now, to define forever a particular persons definition), it will be different tomorrow, we all await the next upgrade .

[cwjohn (Chris)]

Jim - Beautifully crafted response. You certainly made me think about the subject a little differently.

Bass - absolutely, poor choice of words on my part. I agree with your comments totally. I came back from cooled CCD to DSLRs for a couple of years. Very interesting to see what one could achieve with limited resources. Indeed it was a means to an end in itself.

Chris

[Jim McAloon]

Thanks Chris... your thoughtful opening post in particular made me think, which is always good.

cheers, jim

[jase (Jason)]

Interesting thread. Given everyone has different motives, there is no incorrect answer. Though, Humayun, you'll need to introduce me to the girls you hang out with. Any discussion of imaging is the equivalent of buying a clothes iron for your wife's birthday - you're asking for trouble.

Do what you like
Like what you do

This is the key to being successful. In other words if you really enjoy what you do and do it often, you'll become better and better at it. Make no mistakes, there is no substitute for experience, not even money. Your desire to be successful is the catalyst which will in turn define the milestones to reach the goals. Experience is obtained along the way.

This rings true for astrophotography. Too often people dip their toe to test the waters only to be scared off. Jump straight in, but do so within your means and interest. Imaging takes commitment if your intent is deliver results that you are proud of. Logically, if you see it as a chore and don't really enjoy it, chances of success will be grim.

Parting thought...you're as only as good as your last image.

What do I really enjoy about astroimaging, and how do I go about maximising that enjoyment

Pushing the limits of equipment and knowledge along with helping others achieve greater heights. I am fortunate having friends who work with Photoshop all day long. When I catch up with them, I'm regularly picking their brains (much to their disgust I imagine). Such discussions appear to flow as general banter around the bbq with beer in hand. Those who know me or haven't already guessed, equipment for me is a means to getting the data. Data is all I care about, not watching the equipment do its thing. I've spent more than enough time tweaking this and tinkering that when it comes to astro gear. I've got my own robotic set up at a dark sky location and use rental scopes which simply add to the imaging arsenal. I get the same thrill of processing a data set today as I did years ago. Focus remains on the end result.