As you are aware, last Saturday, 5 July, the winners of the 2008 CWAS "David Malin Awards" were announced and presented with their prizes. The presentation ceremony was held during a special Civic Reception hosted by the Mayor of Parkes, Cr Robert Wilson OAM, during the CWAS AstroFest. For details and pictures of the event, please see the following web site:
I have to say, the Galileo bust does look really good.
I am v.excited about the FLI Proline 16803 purchase, and I shall take delivery (hopefully) a week on Friday with the CFW5-7 and a full array of filters, including NB. The FOV is going to be awesome.....just wish I had the new FSQ and the dedicated f3.4 reducer...that would be a blast...but I will settle for f5 and a FOV of 250 arcmins square. 4 x 20lb counterweights are now not enough to balance the PME with the RC/FSQ combination, which will also have a BORG 76ED and Orion Starshooter attached to guide the RC when imaging with the FSQ. So I am having to consider a larger 40lb weight and some other alternatives. Can you believe that a 40lb weight made from stainless steel is $650US plus $250 shipping! Whose idea was this.
I have to say, the Galileo bust does look really good.
I am v.excited about the FLI Proline 16803 purchase, and I shall take delivery (hopefully) a week on Friday with the CFW5-7 and a full array of filters, including NB. The FOV is going to be awesome.....just wish I had the new FSQ and the dedicated f3.4 reducer...that would be a blast...but I will settle for f5 and a FOV of 250 arcmins square. 4 x 20lb counterweights are now not enough to balance the PME with the RC/FSQ combination, which will also have a BORG 76ED and Orion Starshooter attached to guide the RC when imaging with the FSQ. So I am having to consider a larger 40lb weight and some other alternatives. Can you believe that a 40lb weight made from stainless steel is $650US plus $250 shipping! Whose idea was this.
cheers
Martin
That kit sonds awesome mate (and expensive)
I guess your success at SPSP and now the David Malin Awards has netted you some new found and welcomed cooperation from Karen when it comes to saying "err? darling, I've got this thing I want to buy...."? I remember after my past two DM wins my wife was pretty agreeable ...at least for a while
I'm actually in South Africa now. Not fuming at all, overall winner used an SBIG (again, well done Martin) , as did the semi-pro winner, and we picked up a few honorable mentions (plus I got to pet some lion cubs today...bugger the CCD stuff.... these not so little guys are very cool) . All good
There is some great gear available these days, with FLI SBIG and Apogee all making great stuff.... it's a bit like Merc, BMW and Rolls.....but, I'm hanging out for the new STX series from SBIG
Thanks for a really fascinating read guys, thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd like to ask a qualifying question though in relation to Semi-pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
“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.”
I gather this would also include someone who wanted to enter an item and receives a taxable income from teaching astronomy or sells gear (ie the lads from Bintel or Steve from Myastroshop) for example?
Rather thought provoking Paul...I’m not a qualified person to answer your qualified question, so what I’m about to say is unqualified. It would certainly be good to get an official response from the CWAS committee on this amongst other items raised in this post. If you take the reseller path, they are running a business importing telescope goods so plainly semi-pro would fit given the taxable income condition, though many are still amateurs! However there is some emphasis placed on individuals – maybe the condition changes if you are part of a greater business or sole proprietor. I guess the semi pro advantage stems from a reseller buying high end gear and claiming it is used for astronomical testing of products which are part of the business operations, thus they can depreciate the gear over time. As I understand it, if you obtain a taxable income from teaching astronomy or developing astronomy software, the semi-pro condition would also apply. If the time I've purchased on rental scopes was a cost I could claim, I’d be a happy chap. Selling a couple of prints a year is hardly a taxable income to offset the costs, thus the cost of telescope time comes out of my own pocket 100%...So who’s disadvantaged?
Clearly, these rules need to change so they reflect the different scenarios accurately. I trust that CWAS organisers will provide clarity around the semi-pro category and will be visionary in that they will embrace remote imaging instead of making it outcast. It’s only going to increase. If we take the S&T Beautiful Universe competition in which David Malin was also a judge, there was no “classy remote imaging”, semi professional category or even amateur! Everyone was in together based on target categories, galaxies, nebulae, solar system. Hmmm, food for thought.
What a wonderful thread to read...although I have no involvement or particular interest in Astrophotography other than as one who likes to admire it I have enjoyed reading the thread an the different points of view expressed...in an even tempered and rationale way...maybe a first for the internet!
All of those who submitted material to the competition and also to this thread help educate and enrich the hobby in my opinion and have added to my enjoyment of it.
I notice a certain amount of discussion regarding the use of remote imaging.
as someone who was poked at, in another sport for using breaking technology equipment (note that 20 years later over 50% of participants use this gear) i think new methods should be embraced and not discouraged, you may find that in 20 years it will be the most common method of imaging , with 80% of the Western world living in crowded light polluted cities.... who knows. i personlly have not used it, maybee never will but for those who want to use it .... go for it.
As for the Malin Images, if new rules are to be created to allow a section for this, im sure the organisers will take it into due consideration.
What is the purpose of an astronomical imaging contest?
I’ve mulled over this for a time and think the answer is simply to provide recognition for the imaging skills of astrophotographers. I suspect judging takes into account 1) various technical aspects of gathering the data and 2) showcasing the intrinsic beauty or features of the object in question.
Point 2) is essential.... Much can be gleaned from traditional daylight photography and compositional techniques. Images need to be interesting, captivating and draw the viewer in for a closer look.
Point 1) raises a lot of questions about equipment.
But it is simply not the case he/she with the best gear wins.
To be sure, not having to fight your imaging equipment to capture data helps, but knowing how to effectively use what you have is essential to getting great data to create your next astronomical masterpiece.
....and there is the rub for pay per kilobyte imaging. In time, Internet based software will allow the downloading of perfect data without the user having to know one end of a telescope from another.
You will still have to be a photoshop artisan....but you’re not confronted with having to make a silk purse from a sows ear.. as happens all to frequently off-the-shelf
(and often expensive) equipment. Just buying data does nothing to indicate an astrophotographers skill prior to an exposure.
I believe it is a bit like getting Ansel Adams (or even Helmut Newton ) to set up the web-camera/tripod/lights, you log on and click “expose”. Clearly some amazing images can be captured thus...and perhaps a forum should also be given to such images (and in many ways, already is, with works of Gendler, GaBany et al. in S&T etc.)
But in so far as a contest goes, “all my own work” is the only fair model.
It does not stop anyone savvy enough to set up their own remote imaging telescope (seriously hard-core! ) but does draw a line in the sand as to what is considered a real and fair test of an individual’s imaging skill and what is not.
What is the purpose of an astronomical imaging contest?
<snip>
But in so far as a contest goes, “all my own work” is the only fair model.
It does not stop anyone savvy enough to set up their own remote imaging telescope (seriously hard-core! ) but does draw a line in the sand as to what is considered a real and fair test of an individual’s imaging skill and what is not.
I agree with you 100% Peter.
I would however think it quite appropriate if entries that used remotely gathered and purchased data from a comercially (proffessionally) operating observatory was simply incorporated in the semi proffessional section for now, after all, that is exactly what they are.
What is the purpose of an astronomical imaging contest?
But in so far as a contest goes, “all my own work” is the only fair model.
.
As a point of discussion perhaps that means i ground my own mirror and made my own mount.
Most of us have already paid someone elses skill to make our equipment , some more than others.(refering more to the deep sky catagory)
Quote:
But it is simply not the case he/she with the best gear wins.
i think it was this year. (note i am not denigrating martins expertise and time spent aquiring the work)
A real contest of skills would be all participants using the same gear ..... this debate could go on for ever without any conclusion.......
Congratulations to all who entered and even more to those whose images were specially recognised and awarded.
I’m not too certain of what is taken into account Peter. I’d like to hope you’re correct in that your two points mentioned are considered. However, I have my doubts. You are typically judged on the finished product (your point 2), not the journey in getting there. Thus, how you reached the result is of little consequence, whether it is imaged locally or remotely… and is it really anyone’s business to know where the data was collected. All you are asked is the type of telescope used, exposure times, processing tools.
I feel Martin nailed it in his opening statement “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.” Hmmm interesting. Do you think David realised the trouble I went to in the NGC6357 & NGC6334 photo considering I took data from two different focal lengths (FSQ & TOA-150), struggling with equipment (taken locally I should add) and spent another ~12 hours processing the image? If it’s measured on various technical aspects of data collection, then surely Eddie’s Eta mosaic would have came out as the overall winner. It is clear that the end result is all that counts.
We can debate the use of rental scopes all day long. There is undoubtedly a stigma around using such services which to be blatantly honest amuses me. Remote rental facilities aren’t exclusive; anyone can buy time on them so I’d question the advantage one imager has over another. After all, everyone has access to the equipment. It’s their choice should they choose to utilise the facilities. Sure, affordability maybe a limiting factor, however so is that next generation large format CCD camera or 6” APO that has the potential to lift an imagers output quality and provide the so-called distinct advantage claims being made here about remote imaging. Cost validation is identical in both circumstances so it’s a mute point – there are no advantages. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else collecting hi resolution luminance data on a rental scope and combining with RGB they’ve collected on their own scope. It’s about making use of the technologies at hand to deliver an end result that the imager is proud to display – rental scope or not.
Don't mix commercial with professional Mike. The two don't always correlate. Its the use of data which often determines whether its professional or not.
As a point of discussion perhaps that means i ground my own mirror and made my own mount.
Most of us have already paid someone elses skill to make our equipment , some more than others.(refering more to the deep sky catagory)
Clive makes a valid point. Making your own equipment is the true "all my own work" model, so who are we kidding? This would have to be the other end of the extreme to remote imaging. Hmmm interesting thought.
I’m not too certain of what is taken into account Peter. I’d like to hope you’re correct in that your two points mentioned are considered. However, I have my doubts. You are typically judged on the finished product (your point 2), not the journey in getting there. Thus, how you reached the result is of little consequence, whether it is imaged locally or remotely… and is it really anyone’s business to know where the data was collected. All you are asked is the type of telescope used, exposure times, processing tools.
I feel Martin nailed it in his opening statement “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.” Hmmm interesting. Do you think David realised the trouble I went to in the NGC6357 & NGC6334 photo considering I took data from two different focal lengths (FSQ & TOA-150), struggling with equipment (taken locally I should add) and spent another ~12 hours processing the image? If it’s measured on various technical aspects of data collection, then surely Eddie’s Eta mosaic would have came out as the overall winner. It is clear that the end result is all that counts.
We can debate the use of rental scopes all day long. There is undoubtedly a stigma around using such services which to be blatantly honest amuses me. Remote rental facilities aren’t exclusive; anyone can buy time on them so I’d question the advantage one imager has over another. After all, everyone has access to the equipment. It’s their choice should they choose to utilise the facilities. Sure, affordability maybe a limiting factor, however so is that next generation large format CCD camera or 6” APO that has the potential to lift an imagers output quality and provide the so-called distinct advantage claims being made here about remote imaging. Cost validation is identical in both circumstances so it’s a mute point – there are no advantages. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else collecting hi resolution luminance data on a rental scope and combining with RGB they’ve collected on their own scope. It’s about making use of the technologies at hand to deliver an end result that the imager is proud to display – rental scope or not.
Don't mix commercial with professional Mike. The two don't always correlate. Its the use of data which often determines whether its professional or not.
Naaaaaeeeh, sorry, somehow I just can't accept that purchasing data from a remote scope that ain't yours "by order" off the internet that you did nothing to help acquire, just ain't normal amateur imaging. While I think it is a great ability and incredible service the practise deffinitely needs at least special consideration in an imaging contest.
)
Oh, wait... that would an unfair advantage.
![[1ponders]'s Avatar](../vbiis/customavatars/avatar45_9.gif){kind=avatar}
