2008 CWAS David Malin Awards

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Sorry Jase but I have to agree with Peter on this one. Comercially purchased image data from GRAS or LightBuckets is indeed crossing the line in my opinion and is no different to using more traditional "professional" observatory data. Either not allow such data at all or have a seperate category IMO.

If on the other hand it is your own remote setup that you own and organised to install or indeed installed yourself and you are not simply ordering the data ala Maca's then perhaps it's ok but if you are simply ordering on line the data you want so it arrives all neatly packaged then it aint right IMO.

That said and just like SPSP, what ever the rules are I am happy to comply.

All the above doesn't mean I begrudge any of your entries one iota, they were all fantastic and complied with the rules as they presently stand.

Mike

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Mike

Thats interesting, I know that most (all?) owner remote installations in the SH are set up locally (just buy the gear and ship it), then they "order" images from their gear, where do they stand?. Is there a creative difference between just shiping gear and setting it up themselves?.

[Garyh]

I can understand both sides to this argument and both Peter and Jase have merit in what they say..
I think this will have to be addressed in some way in the CWAS categories as all images are judged blind by David with no knowledge of how the data was acquired and what equipment was used..


I think a good solution would be to put a focal length to each category and maybe split deepsky images into two categories ?
Say.
Widefield is <300mm
Deepsky widefield 300mm to 1200mm
Deepsky Narrowfield <1200mm

This would help bundle setups and scopes that are more similar regardless if acquired via renta scopes or by the owner of the gear..
Also would open up opportunities for the more cash strapped imagers out there with small scopes like the ED80 or similar regardless of ccds or DSLR`s.
cheer Gary

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Mike

Thats interesting, I know that most (all?) owner remote installations in the SH are set up locally (just buy the gear and ship it), then they "order" images from their gear, where do they stand?. Is there a creative difference between just shiping gear and setting it up themselves?.

The simple answer is staring us all in the face...ie. any image that uses data from any telescope located at a comercially (an important distinction)operating observatory setup (whether it is your own scope or not) is simply clased as semi-proffesional - easy! Data from a proffessional and/or government research observatory would still be not allowed of course.

Problem solved ...aaaand Peter and Eddie finlly get some real competiton

Mike

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Garyh

I can understand both sides to this argument and both Peter and Jase have merit in what they say..
I think this will have to be addressed in some way in the CWAS categories as all images are judged blind by David with no knowledge of how the data was acquired and what equipment was used..


I think a good solution would be to put a focal length to each category and maybe split deepsky images into two categories ?
Say.
Widefield is <300mm
Deepsky widefield 300mm to 1200mm
Deepsky Narrowfield <1200mm

This would help bundle setups and scopes that are more similar regardless if acquired via renta scopes or by the owner of the gear..
Also would open up opportunities for the more cash strapped imagers out there with small scopes like the ED80 or similar regardless of ccds or DSLR`s.
cheer Gary

Nah far too messy IMO mate . I say keep it as it is and just slip the remote data aquisition into the semi Pro division - easy.

If people like Martin Pugh and others can afford to have their own CCD + image rotator + Adaptive Optics + RC + robotic mount all controlled by CCD autopilot etc then so be it, they are not semi proffessional by trade ie they earn no taxable income per se and they are not just paying for the data direct.

Mike

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Mike

Sure, I agree, remote installations go in the semi pro catagory, easy solution. I dont know if "commercial" site is realavent, if its in a mates backyard, but it does seem fair, id go with that.

[EddieT (Eddie)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Problem solved ...aaaand Peter and Eddie finlly get some real competiton

Hi Mike,

That sounds reasonable and I'm all for it as it applies to rented equipment.

But sheesh, the perceived advantage of being semi-pro has never applied to me. There have been entries by amateurs with far better equipment than me since the first contest I entered (2005). The reason for me being semi-pro and the reason for having a distinction in the categories are two completely different things, from my perspective...

And...if you have any inside info on the absence of any other semi-pro entrants to date, please let me know. As far as I know, Peter and I aren't the only two, just the only two that have won anything....

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by EddieT

And...if you have any inside info on the absence of any other semi-pro entrants to date, please let me know. As far as I know, Peter and I aren't the only two, just the only two that have won anything....

Eddie!

There are three! I Recall the guy from the SMH won with his Venus transit image.

Yet, I know how you feel. As for number of "semi- pro" (odd classification as Eddie is in IT, and I'm a part time amateur astronomer full-time Pilot) entrants, John Sarkissian at CWAS told me it is about a dozen or so.

The fact that Eddie and I have both take the bow in past years might also imply there is a modicum of skill there


Cheers
Peter

[Bassnut (Fred)]

ummm, so apart from a commercial interest in Astronomy very generally (and obscurley as you point out), what does the catogory "semi pro" imply in regards to image quality?.

[EddieT (Eddie)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Eddie!

There are three! I Recall the guy from the SMH won with his Venus transit image.

Hi Peter! Congrats on taking me out yet again Ha! Ok, I remember the image and the guy, but didn't realise he was semi-pro.

Yet, I know how you feel. As for number of "semi- pro" (odd classification as Eddie is in IT, and I'm a part time amateur astronomer full-time Pilot) entrants, John Sarkissian at CWAS told me it is about a dozen or so.

Ok, well that's good to know! I can understand how it could *seem* to people, that we were the only two in that category

The fact that Eddie and I have both take the bow in past years might also imply there is a modicum of skill there

At least a modicum, we can hope

Good to hear from you!

[EddieT (Eddie)]

Hi Fred, how's it going?

Originally Posted by Bassnut

ummm, so apart from a commercial interest in Astronomy very generally (and obscurley as you point out), what does the catogory "semi pro" imply in regards to image quality?.

The category relates to image quality tenuously, in that semi-pro's are deemed to have some (unquantified) advantage over amateurs.

A semi-pro by (contest) definition is someone who gains a taxable income from some astronomy-related pursuit. I think that's all...

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Thanks Eddie

"tenuose" to be sure , it would seem IT and Pilot skills wouldnt necessarily give you an advantage, but I understand the reason for the catagory.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by EddieT

Hi Fred, how's it going?

The category relates to image quality tenuously, in that semi-pro's are deemed to have some (unquantified) advantage over amateurs.

A semi-pro by (contest) definition is someone who gains a taxable income from some astronomy-related pursuit. I think that's all...

Yep...that's pretty much it....but even then, our SMH guy, being a pro-photographer, was deemed as a "semi-pro" astro-photographer.

All a bit moot really. The images at the end of the day tell the story.

[rally]

Congratulations to all the entrants, all the winners and all the honourable mentions, did I miss anyone (yes - Judges and Organisers and Hosts and sponsors - better not forget spouses and friends) - congratulations to them also !

Another point of view :
As far as the healthy conjecture is concerned, I think the organisers will always have some difficulty with their divisional groupings.
How do we categorise all the food stuffs in a supermarket - there is a million different ways ! (by brand, aisle or shelf height, price, colour, flavour, value, use, quality, safety, efficacy, shelf life . . . )

The Astro playing field is not level and far from static and never will be, their will always be people with $1,000 budgets, those with $10,000 budgets and those with $100,000 budgets, just as their will be people who have different levels of mastery of the imaging and post processing software and have developed their own special techniques and skills.

So budget could be a factor ?
You could split up imaging by film, DSLR and Astro camera
Then split it up by megapixels, cryogenic cooling and 10 other features
Maybe split by manual focussing or electronic, what about temperature compensated.
Then we get to Scopes - aperture, optical design, focal length . . . . . . .
Then by Mounts - hand operated !, mechanical, through to totally robotic and remote controlled etc
Or do we base it on the entrants own level of input into the construction of the equipment used !

Post processing - unprocessed through to some complex algorthm for what PP actually occurred - with much argument !

Its an impossible task to get it perfect and please all parties.

These are all valid and plausible criteria for how it could get grouped - but what a mess it would be.

No matter how it gets arranged there is always the possibility that there could be a minority group who may be unfairly disadvantaged or even advantaged.

I think that it is likely that new classes will be entertained as the community gets more involved and the level of entrants increases and that would be a good thing.
It is also likely that more Subject categories could be created as this would split up the field a little - trying to compare the merits of some of the widely differing entries would also be a difficult task - a bit like comparing the merits of embroidery to software or target shooting to architectural design !


But what is really great about the whole process is the high quality of imaging and the continuing development and expansion of the craft of Astro Imagery.
It is clearly growing and Awards like this help stimulate it and I am sure that is one of the aims of the program.

The Awards were given to the best results as determined by the judges.

But I guess having some clear definitions of what the classes mean and there ranges and limits would be nice, but consider that maybe we should give the judges some latitude so that they may make awards to the best of the images as they see fit ?

Personally I dont see there being a problem with hiring a scope, we could borrow a friend's scope if we wanted and that would be OK. At least everyone is on a level playing field here as nearly everyone can afford $100-200 to do so if they really desired.
After all - It would be prejudicial to those who cant afford or dont want to buy expensive gear that would like to enter such a contest !
But maybe a classification is required - maybe not.

Food for thought anyway.

Cheers

Rally

PS Should a Hubble image be allowed ?
I gues if you paid for the time, was instrumental in its operation and targetting and performed the final processing and it was entered into a suitable category - why not !

Hope I dont need to duck !!

[jase (Jason)]

Ok. Looks like we’ve reached agreement (or agree to disagree if that makes sense). Like others, I’m fine for rental scope entries to be placed into a new category. This will not be semi pro unless the regulations change. To date, semi pro states the following;

“For the purposes of this competition, semi-professional astrophotographers are deemed to be people who are astronomers, professional photographers, or individuals who gain a taxable income in some way from astronomical or photographic work. Hobbyists who occasionally sell their photographs for a nominal sum, but do not gain a taxable income from their hobby, will be deemed amateurs.”

So as it stands, even if someone buys time on a rental telescope, they are still an amateur no matter which way you look at it. It doesn’t make a difference if it’s a remotely controlled FSQ or a 40” (1 meter class) RC. Equipment is irrelevant; you are still buying time to collect data to process, which obviously a few here have “ethical” problems with. I’m fine with that, each to their own.

I know I'm not alone. Many astrophotoghers such as Gendler, Croman, Schedler (yes, Mike even Johannes amazing M104 image you posted a while back was taken remotely), Block, Crawford, Gabany, Mazlin (to name a few) are using internet controlled telescopes. Do we judge or disregard their work differently because they didn't battle with mosquitoes or monitor the guide star corrections like a hawk during the acquisition process or heaven forbid didn't drift align before starting their imaging run? Sheesh. This is the new world coming of age. Don't get me wrong, its great to get out there with your own gear. Been there, done that and I continue to do so when I get a chance, but I will also continue to endorse internet controlled telescopes and the value they bring.

The use of such facilities are only going to increase, so it’s a case of adopting new technologies as Peter put it in a previous post. Competition policies need to be dynamic to accept such changes. They should also not convolute what is amateur and professional along with performing hybrid imaging. It will be interesting to see how the competition guidelines will address this. I don't think its that easy...as per my example of hybrid imaging mentioned in a previous post. Interesting times ahead...

[skeltz (Rob)]

In my opinion i would like to think that basically to keep things straightforward it should be no :1 completely with your own astro gear,and various categories
No 2 another section for remote images,and another with dslr,s with their native lenses for the ultrawidefield this is of course a very rough guideline but you get what i am on about.Having said that,
If you all force your opinions to much ..canon might say...competition only open to dslr,s???+....yes it is a virtual pandoras box,lets just leave it as a competion and let the powers that be worry about the rules and categories be???? foood for thought?

[Martin Pugh]

Hi all....a very interesting thread..and if I may add my 10c.

For me, it is unfortunate that David does not consider equipment used, time spent, effort levied, prevailing conditions (i.e object never above 30 degrees altitude) when judging the competition.

I am certainly in favour of the 'all own work' scenario. It was late 1999 when I started imaging with an LX200 classic and a Starlight Express HX916. From then until around Jun 05, I was completely unproductive....finding my way, learning from a multitude of mistakes, set up errors, mastering polar alignment..you name it, with no local help at all (I lived in Belgium and Portugal for a total of 4.5 years with only the excellent help available from the internet forums and groups). I even remember calling Adam Block at Kitt Peak to discuss my damn LX200...because he was the master of the 16" there at the time. My learning curve continued as I improved my skills, having to do with inadequate equipment, terrible weather conditions, portable set ups and the list goes on...not to mention the absolute dreadful track record I have when purchasing equipment (every single piece of kit I have bought from the US has either been broken, inoperative, incomplete or the incorrect item). I upgraded to Tak equipment (mount and scope), got a better camera (my first SBIG ST8E), and then my final purchase (having sold all the Tak gear) was the PME, RC and STL11K. Meanwhile, I was practicing every single aspect of this great hobby, and kept rather scary levels of detail in terms of setup and configuration procedures (for every single piece of kit I owned), acquisition best practice, processing hints and tips...not to mention the 4 months solid work it took me to master the AOL on this particular set up.
Then I moved to Australia in Oct 04 but did not establish a static observatory until May 05 when I purchased my property in Yass. Thus, everything on my website has been produced in 3 short years but there is not a single night that goes by where I have to go and tweak something, fix something or I am having to throw data away, still competing with less than average environmental conditions.

So to come away as the overall winner gives me exceptional satisfaction, and that indeed it has been all my own work, with huge amounts of effort in the background mixed with tons of disappointment.

Finally, I hope the competition organisers are able to sort it out...it has to be fair at the end of the day.

thanks again to all those who have commented.

cheers
Martin

[EddieT (Eddie)]

The bottom line for me on the rules issue, is that I'm happy to be nothing more than a participant.

I trust David, John and the organisers have everyone's best interests in mind when they ammend the contest guidelines from year to year and are fully aware that they can't please everyone...

As a participant, I have no problem with abiding by whatever rules they stipulate, even if they don't particularly suit me personally.

[EddieT (Eddie)]

Hi Martin,
You're attention to detail really shows. I've seen some of the images you ended up discarding You also have some pretty good skies there. Spending as much time on one object as I get clear skies in a quarter!

Congrats again on all of your work, even if it's only 3 years worth ...

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

Hi all....a very interesting thread..and if I may add my 10c.

For me, it is unfortunate that David does not consider equipment used, time spent, effort levied, prevailing conditions (i.e object never above 30 degrees altitude) when judging the competition.

I am certainly in favour of the 'all own work' scenario. It was late 1999 when I started imaging with an LX200 classic and a Starlight Express HX916. From then until around Jun 05, I was completely unproductive....finding my way, learning from a multitude of mistakes, set up errors, mastering polar alignment..you name it, with no local help at all (I lived in Belgium and Portugal for a total of 4.5 years with only the excellent help available from the internet forums and groups). I even remember calling Adam Block at Kitt Peak to discuss my damn LX200...because he was the master of the 16" there at the time. My learning curve continued as I improved my skills, having to do with inadequate equipment, terrible weather conditions, portable set ups and the list goes on...not to mention the absolute dreadful track record I have when purchasing equipment (every single piece of kit I have bought from the US has either been broken, inoperative, incomplete or the incorrect item). I upgraded to Tak equipment (mount and scope), got a better camera (my first SBIG ST8E), and then my final purchase (having sold all the Tak gear) was the PME, RC and STL11K. Meanwhile, I was practicing every single aspect of this great hobby, and kept rather scary levels of detail in terms of setup and configuration procedures (for every single piece of kit I owned), acquisition best practice, processing hints and tips...not to mention the 4 months solid work it took me to master the AOL on this particular set up.
Then I moved to Australia in Oct 04 but did not establish a static observatory until May 05 when I purchased my property in Yass. Thus, everything on my website has been produced in 3 short years but there is not a single night that goes by where I have to go and tweak something, fix something or I am having to throw data away, still competing with less than average environmental conditions.

So to come away as the overall winner gives me exceptional satisfaction, and that indeed it has been all my own work, with huge amounts of effort in the background mixed with tons of disappointment.

Finally, I hope the competition organisers are able to sort it out...it has to be fair at the end of the day.

thanks again to all those who have commented.

cheers
Martin

Your trials and tribulations sound pretty familiar Martin ...but like you say the recognition of our images by the worlds most respected astrophotographer is pretty satisfying huh? ...not to mention that beeeeeeeeautiful bust of Galilleo you now have sittin on ya mantle

How anyone will be able to touch you next year with the new FLI16803 and FSQ106 is frankly beyond me SBIG and Peter will be fuming