The Top 10 Best Astrophotographers in Australia

[Robert9 (Robert)]

Great idea to give well earned credit for some phenomenal work by brilliant Aussie astrophotographers. A great choice Mike.
I was a little surprised not to find an image of eta Carina; but then, there are no images presented that I would choose not to have!
Robert

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Abraham Lincoln once said that you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.


Regards, Rob.

Just a a matter of interest Rob, as far as I can tell, the quote was 'you can fool some of the people etc etc ...'. But it often gets changed to the 'please' variety.

Both are equally true though imho.

Hope you don't mind me offering this correction

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by PCH

Just a a matter of interest Rob, as far as I can tell, the quote was 'you can fool some of the people etc etc ...'. But it often gets changed to the 'please' variety.

Both are equally true though imho.

Hope you don't mind me offering this correction

Thanks Paul, I actually like his original version better. But not in the context of this thread.
Never realized the double usage.
Regards, Rob.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by Enchilada

However, picking a Top Ten leaves too many out for my liking !!

(If you really must, probably, Joe Cauchi of the ASNSWI would be certainly be in the top echelon - and he been doing it persistently and brilliantly since the early 1980s!)

Funnily enough Joe Cauchi has probably forgotten more about astrophotography than a couple on the top 20 list will ever learn, IMO. In addition, Joe was one of the "WORLD'S BEST" amateur astrophotographers when being a good astrophotographer required you to know a lot about astronomy and a lot about photography. Joe is one of the all time best ever IMO. There are also a couple of other excellent astrophotographers around that would make the list, but they go unheard of and unnoticed because they don't seek internet fame and recognition for their work.

Cheers,
John B

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by iceman

Funny though, I noticed on another forum someone saying that "prudence" suggests one should not have included themselves. But then in the same topic thread on a different forum, that same person includes themselves in a list of top planetary imagers running close on Damian Peach's heels.

I feel I have to respond here. What I have to say will no doubt ruffle some feathers but I think this needs to be said. I am not doing this to cause trouble, just I want to respond to this comment. It is not my intention to cause trouble.

That would be me you are quoting here Mike. I said this because, in the eyes of many you are not in the top ten astroimagers in Australia. You inferred that you knew this yourself. There is no doubt that your articles and talks have helped many. Your work of the last two years has been solid but certainly not as good as some, that includes Solar, Lunar, Deep Space and Planetary. That is the reason I said prudence would suggest that you not include yourself.

I did include myself in the top ten of planetary imagers because my images are of such detail and have been commented upon by many respected imagers including Damian himself. I have no qualms about including myself in the top ten planetary imagers, but this is based on my results in the last two years. Those that beg to differ are more than welcome to visit my site http://paulhaese.net and compare for themselves.

In terms of the top ten Australian astrophotographers (this is a broad term, it may well include many aspects of the hobby), well who knows. Probably not. As many have said there are many people who are far better than a lot of people on your list but never even got mentioned. Not having website, or being published makes it hard to know about them. You said this much yourself. Additionally do you say for one field, for a variety of fields or do you say as an all rounder. The definition of Astrophotographer is difficult. Or should it be by what sort of equipment one owns?

You are right it is your list and your criteria. Awards and publications are one thing I suppose, but not all people publicise their awards and publications. For some it does not matter. I personally have been published well over 30 times but could not care less what the exact number is or with which publication. It is just not that important in the scheme of things. What matters to me is quality in terms of images, not in quantity or frequency of being published.

I hope this is not seen as an argumentative thing, I just wanted to reply to your remarks. I guess we will have to agree to disagree in this matter.

[Virgs]

Most of this could have been avoided if the title of the thread read "My top 10 list of Australian Astrophotographers", then it would have been clear from the outset it was Mikes personal opinion from the start. Those that did take the time out to read the criteria would have realised that it was his list as determied by him and that it had no real weight behind it. What I understand is that people on cloudy nights and here took offence that the title as it was worded implied that this was some how an official list or should be thought of as such - even though he does state clearly the criteria used. Then by adding yourself to the list even though you meet your own criteria was probably a mistake in hindsight becuse when these types of things are compiled never does the author put themselves on it and it gets interpretted as endless self promotion - rightly or wrongly. It would have been different if the list was compiled by a group and they had included Mike or if it was the result of a poll etc etc. Anyway this is all a moot point because it was meant to showcase Australian Astrophotography to the folks on cloudy nights and it has done that it is a pity that all this negative discussion could have been so easily avoided with a simple change to the title. Just my view on things...

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

Joe is one of the all time best ever IMO.
Cheers,
John B

Have to agree with you on that one John, Joe is a mostly silent acheiver so just slipped under Mikes Radar I am sure.

Here's an analogy (and not directed at your post John but the issue at hand in general): There are many gifted strength athletes out there who seldom if ever compete, or appear on TV or in Newspapers, so very few people know just how strong and fast or agile they really are. When I was competing in national and international strongman contests between 1995 and 2004 I actually made second place in "Australia's Strongest Man" contest (winged it I think? ) at The Royal Melbourne Show. Even so, I was very clear that I simply finished second in that particular contest between 10 talented strength athletes from various national strength sports (Track and Field, Weight lifting, Powerlifting, bodybulidng etc) from around Australia. I think the contest organisers just felt that a contest title "Who of these 10 strength athletes from around Australia are the best in these 12 events" sounded pretty boring so they sensationalised it a tad to grab attention. To believe that I had the absolute penultimate strength level in the country simply because I finished second in that particular contest would have made me a sad deluded beef cake .

So it is with Mikes list. Mikes list is by no means deffinitive and he has said this pretty clearly...I am flatterd that he holds my work (and bribes) in such high regard though.

It has generated a bit of interest at least so not all bad

Been an interesting discussion

Mike

[TrevorW]

Hey Mike

I won't argue with YOU on that one (I've seen a photo)

Cheers

[Octane (Humayun)]

Yeah, I was surprised i didn't see my name at #1 on the list.

Forget the SBIG's, FLI's, StarlightXpress's -- bring on the old 350D!

Can you do this list again in twelve months time, Mike?

Regards,
Humayun

[PeterM]

There is no doubt that 15 names on Mikes list does not by anymeans cover all the fine astro imagers in Australia. BUT his list does showcase 15 of our best, please lets not take anything away from that.
I am not an astroimager as such, but I do like what I see on Mikes list -stunning images, that to me rank up there with the best I have seen. I applaud those who deliberately go to the trouble of making their images available to a wider audience as in IIS or the Malin awards or society websites.
There are some Qld names that come to mind like Zac Pujic, Greg Bond, Michael Horn, David Rigley, Max Kilmister, Greg Bock and of course the late great Erwin Vandervelden (and many others) who in my opinion would be on any list of fine imagers. There will be many more from each state. Maybe we need a state of origin top 10. 20 list....hmmm.
Mike should be in his list, he has shown what can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time. His recent images of Jupiter are stunning indeed.
So if as it now seems, other astro chat groups around the world are now looking at this "arguable" list of names then they will be seeing the names and works of other top notch Australian imagers. Surely that is a good thing.
I think we have pulled off a bit of a coup here and wonder how long it will be before other chat groups start lists?
Again, to all of you whether on Mikes list or not, whether a gazillion dollars in equipment or not, congratulations you deserve any accolades!
PeterM.

[Peter Ward]

Up to now I've stayed out of this interesting discussion simply to keep a low profile.

However the point has been raised a few times now, with the argument being "he with the best toys wins" .

My take on that? "bollocks!"

I have consistently used some very basic and not too expensive gear (eg. DSLR and triopd and not much else) to good effect, indeed some of my best images use nothing more than a good camera/lens on a tracking mount or tripod.

Simply walking out into your back yard and taking a quick time exposure (roof tops and all) is a great recipe for a boring image IMHO (unless ET just landed).

Finding a great landscape to frame a celestial event takes effort....yet it amazes me how few make that effort.

This also extends to planetary imagers who get up in the wee small hours to capture great seeing. Deep sky imagers who dedicate hours of data over multiple nights for just one object. Image processing technicians who spend hours tweaking their data to extract all information possible.

While Mike's list may have been esoteric, maybe even brave, he certainly has a sound understanding of the sheer effort many "pretty astro-pictures" require and kudos to him for giving a little recognition to a pretty esoteric pursuit in this IYA

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I have consistently used some very basic and not too expensive gear (eg. DSLR and triopd and not much else) to good effect, indeed some of my best images use nothing more than a good camera/lens on a tracking mount or tripod.
Simply walking out into your back yard and taking a quick time exposure (roof tops and all) is a great recipe for a boring image IMHO (unless ET just landed).
Finding a great landscape to frame a celestial event takes effort....yet it amazes me how few make that effort.

Exactly right. It is artistry over over conformity. Pushing the envelope of mind an soul means more in "quality" than just following everyone else. (Like taking the ten millionth picture of a "perfect" M42 / Orion nebula pic! What IS the point?)
IMO far more than ten people do that in Australia.
In the end it is like being an art critic compared to, say, someone who has perfect level of technical excellent and has absolutely no idea of what some image means or portrays.

The difference is between just clicking the shutter or actually formulating some unique masterpiece.

The real problem with amateur imaging in Australia, IMO, we have an overabundance quality artisans! Separating them is like separating again the ingredients of some "Michelin star's" own cooking delicacy. You cannot do it...

The final results is really just as it is!

[Octane (Humayun)]

If you want to go down that route, why do anything?

The point is to do it for yourself. To see if you're capable. To see if you can stretch the equipment that you have to its limits. To do it for yourself, not for other people.

We could all do no imaging and just sit back and view Rob Gendler's masterpieces over and over again, but, then, what would be the point in that?

I'd like to think that I have something to aspire to.

Originally Posted by Enchilada

Pushing the envelope of mind an soul means more in "quality" than just following everyone else. (Like taking the ten millionth picture of a "perfect" M42 / Orion nebula pic! What IS the point?)

[marki]

I find some of the comments in this thread a little curious. Everyone seems to be able to reel off a list of great astrophotographers not on the list but also suggest that many of these people do not publish or make their images known except to a select few. if the images are not in the lime light how can one include it on a list? Perhaps Mike should have called it the top ten astrophotographers posting on IIS.

Mark

[Bloodbean (Troy)]

Excellent read thanks Mike! Some truly stunning images taken.

Troy

[iceman (Mike)]

More interesting discussions

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I have no qualms about including myself in the top ten planetary imagers, but this is based on my results in the last two years.

There are many, many top-level planetary imagers whose work is equal to and at times better than yours, mine, Anthony's and others in your circle of friends that you list. You just need to look at Fabio Plocos, Dario Pires, Alan Friedman and many many more outside a closed circle to find other people doing exceptional planetary imaging. Even in Australia, people like Zac Pujic, Maurice Valimberti and Stephen Buda have been producing quality planetary images for years before you or I were.

It's clear to most people at the top level that their skill levels are all very equal, and he/she who gets the best seeing gets the best images.
There would be literally a hundred or more people who have an excellent foundation of capturing and processing planetary images, including collimation, temperature control, focus, capture settings and image processing. Then it just comes down to getting the best seeing.
Of course there's slight differences in technique, particularly processing and some do that better than others, but it's a very level playing field at the top level.

So "prudence" would suggest some humility before assertion.

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

In terms of the top ten Australian astrophotographers (this is a broad term, it may well include many aspects of the hobby), well who knows. Probably not. As many have said there are many people who are far better than a lot of people on your list but never even got mentioned. Not having website, or being published makes it hard to know about them. You said this much yourself. Additionally do you say for one field, for a variety of fields or do you say as an all rounder. The definition of Astrophotographer is difficult. Or should it be by what sort of equipment one owns?

I'm not sure what your point is - you're just re-iterating what I've already said.
I've already stated my criteria and what was and wasn't taken into account. You or anyone else is free at any time to state your own criteria and name your own list.

Originally Posted by Virgs

What I understand is that people on cloudy nights and here took offence that the title as it was worded implied that this was some how an official list or should be thought of as such - even though he does state clearly the criteria used.

Sorry but this is incorrect - it was one person who signed up anonymously at CN to criticise it.
The title is the title. There's nothing official about it and if people bothered to read the article, on at least 4 separate occassions it states that it's my personal opinion.
Mike's analogy with his strongman efforts are a good example.
Also, on TV when you see shows titled "World's Greatest Commercials", do you actually think that's some official list put together by some world TV commercial classification body? Or do you think it's just put together by some producer?

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Have to agree with you on that one John, Joe is a mostly silent acheiver so just slipped under Mikes Radar I am sure.

Quite right - I missed including Joe; he definitely would've made my list. I'm a big fan of his work and have seen it win many awards at SPSP competitions.

Originally Posted by marki

if the images are not in the lime light how can one include it on a list? Perhaps Mike should have called it the top ten astrophotographers posting on IIS

It's certainly more difficult to find the great photography if you don't see it posted anywhere. Many great astrophotographers in Australia keep their work to themselves and simply print it out for their wall at home.
However in my list, I certainly didn't restrict myself by looking simply at members of IceInSpace. Steve Crouch, for example, is not a member of IceInSpace and is easily one of Australia's top astrophotographers.
It just so happens that the majority of who I consider top astrophotographers are or have been active members of IceInSpace. That doesn't mean my list was biased. IceInSpace has a very large reach in Australia so it's expected.

I knew the list would be controversial, and as Peter said, it was a brave move posting it. But that's what I started my personal blog for - to post my personal opinions.

The article was meant to highlight the great photography we do in Australia (many people on overseas forums have seen some of those names for the first time and were very impressed with their work), profile some of the people doing it, and to generate some interesting discussions. It's achieved all of those things.

I don't regret posting it at all. I learned long ago, and as someone else also said, you can't please everyone. So these days I don't even try.

[Alchemy (Clive)]

wow , wouldnt have thought it was such a contentous issue, i considered mikes list and as stated it was his opinion, mine might be different but i dont see what the big deal is. he has his favorites, i have mine. Mine probably would lean to deep sky as that my interest, and i would have different criteria due to my own personal experience.

i read his article and enjoyed it


cheers clive

[TrevorW]

Maybe the title should have just read

"MS own opinion on who are the currently the best Top 10 AAP in Australia including me just for the hell of it and I know this will stir up a hornets nest but what the heck I did it my way"

: camera:: eek:

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by iceman

The article was meant to highlight the great photography we do in Australia (many people on overseas forums have seen some of those names for the first time and were very impressed with their work), profile some of the people doing it, and to generate some interesting discussions.

If that was what you were trying to achieve Mike a heading along the lines of:-

"A Showcase of 'some' of Australia's Best Astrophotographers and their Images"

might have achieved the same goals without creating controversy.

To start with, IMO you should have segregated planetary imaging from DSO imaging. They are totally different and in the main require different skills and equipment. In many cases some of the people taking good planetary images don't take good DSO images and vice versa. Some that are extremely skilled; and with the right equipment, do an excellent job of both. To include someone in a "top 10" field that covers astrophotography as a generalisation, when they take less than outstanding DSO images and in some cases very average DSO images, to me is a misnomer. Further, to come up with a "top 10" designation to me is just way too subjective when as far as I am concerned you have left out a big part of the field and a few top contenders.

I just think you created something controversial when you could have achieved the goals you set out to achieve without being controversial.

Should you have included yourself in the list? Had you created the subject as a generalisation of Australias Best Astrophotography without a "top 10" designation, unquestionably so. On the basis that you have created the list? I don't know. I don't know enough about astrophotography to split hairs at the top level. To say that one image is better than another is subjective in itself and that's why I think a generalisation of "Some of Australia's Best Astrophotographers and their work" would have been a far more diligent approach. You include yourself and exclude Paul Haese. I rate Paul's planetary images the equal of yours and his Deep Sky images infinitely better, but again that is subjective. It's only my opinion. I guarantee you can find 100 people that think your planetary images are better than Paul's, again that is subjective. Should you not have placed more emphasis on Paul's superior imaging skills of DSO targets? Again that is subjective. I have never been totally impressed with "most" of Anthony Wesley's images. I will admit he has come up with a couple of crackers. They always strike me as being "overprocessed" and grainy. I can appreciate that is Anthony's personal style and he does it to try and extract the extra detail that type of processing brings out. To my eye it is not as aesthetically pleasing as some of the planetary images done by other people. I guarantee you can find 100 people who will tell you Anthony is the best planetary imager in Australia. Again that is subjective.

If you just wanted to showcase Australian Astrophotogrpahy, which is some of the best in the world, I think you could have done so with a lot less controversy.

List all the good ones, put them in together and not rank them in any order, would have been the way to go IMO.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Maybe the title should have just read

"MS own opinion on who are the currently the best Top 10 AAP in Australia including me just for the hell of it and I know this will stir up a hornets nest but what the heck I did it my way"

: camera:: eek:

I can't see what all the fuss is about. One mans opinion, stated quite clearly from the start. Seems to me there is a lot of people out there who disagree with the list, that is up to you. Make your own list and post it where ever you wish. When it all boils down, who really cares.Seems to me to be all about rattleing a chain and see who gets fired up.
GROW UP.