I would like to know how the imagers, and other members of IIS, feel about 'for hire' operations, or 'data buy services' appearing and being used in what is supposed to be an amateur forum. I realise imaging can be seen as a budget related exercise, and so perhaps buying data or rental access to high end equipment is just a more cost effective access path than paying for it yourself. However, does this not reduce our appreciation of what a dedicated amateur can produce from his/her backyard or on a dark site trip?
Perhaps this has been debated in the past and there is already some agreement on this direction, if so let me know. Are we just reducing imaging to processing of "store bought" data? Personally if i paid for data and just processed it i would feel like i was mis-representing my work. Perhaps i am just a luddite, what do you think?
dont see a problem myself provided the origin of the data is clearly stated so there is no deception or plagarism. I have an iTelescope subscription, and see it as an opportunity primarily to remotely acquire data on targets not visible from my own location. My home scopes are also operated remotely from the house rather than outside by the scope itself, and automation allows me to collect data while doing other things (eg sleeping). Same same i think.
I'm not sure how people using purchased data would "reduce our appreciation of what a dedicated amateur can produce from his/her backyard or on a dark site trip"
Ultimately if I have a fully automated remote system that I've set up myself, is that really any "better" than a fully automated remote system someone else owns?
Processing data is really quite challenging. I'll appreciate good results regardless of where the data comes from. If I know the challenges the photographer was subjected to, I might appreciate that too.
Disclaimer: I have a Deep Sky West subscription. I hardly ever post images created using that data (in fact, I don't think I've ever posted any on this site), but have occasionally posted them to Astrobin. Frankly I don't like the data that much and very much prefer the imaging scale I normally shoot with at home. I mostly signed up due to ongoing hardwareissues and an expectation that I'd be out of action for an extended period, which I was.
Interesting thing is, I've seen what some people have been able to do with that DSW data, and it's amazing; my results with the same data was underwhelming. If anything this experience has given me more respect for those people and their processing skill.
No problem whatsoever.
Perhaps once upon a time people felt they should have made their own telescope.
Perhaps once upon a time people felt hand guiding was the only way it should be done and that auto guiding was cheating
Perhaps once upon a time using goto meant you didn't learn the sky properly.
Perhaps once upon a time digital imaging was cheating as you could fiddle with it afterwards.
Perhaps using automated steps in photoshop or similar was cheating ( star shrinking routines etc)
Times change, these days most data is collected via computerisation of one sort or another, it's just another step along.
I personally have no issues with it, I get more joy out of seeing what comes from the data than actually capturing it. This is possibly largely due to being on a mobile setup where if I want dark skies I've got to make the 3 hour round trip, setup and pack up and usually do this on a work night as it's never good on a weekend
Imaging processing and acquisition are two parts of the same goal, and not everyone can afford to or has the technical skills to acquire data (or maybe even the interest).
I enjoy using my own data even though its not the best, but sometimes I like to practise image processing with downloaded data. Its fine as long as you acknowledge the source.
As others have said, I think if you label it correctly then it doesn't really matter if you acquired it direct or remote.
I think the other side to it though is that we should expect/request a reasonable amount of info about an image that is being posted here, including the source. Besides the appreciation of the beauty of the images, it can be useful for learning or comparison purposes to have more than just a "title".
We all know that "more money, more music" applies in all this.
Hiring other people's equipment to produce "pretty picture" and then showing it around doesn't really sit well with me... even if source is fully acknowledged (which it should be, every detail of it). As an amateur, I prefer my own equipment, my own skills... accepting in full that my results will be possibly inferior compared to those acquired with 10x more expensive equipment.... but that is why they will be 10x more valuable for me.
Different thing is collecting data for particular scientific project, this is way of doing projects in professional world.
I do envy those who can afford to own a remote obs. If I could access good cold, dry, dark skies at an affordable price, I would leap at it. I can't image many of us who would not.
The real art is in the processing. Once again, I envy those who have mastered PI and other arcane techniques and can produce such beautiful work with it. I doubt that there are many of us who do not.
So what's the beef. The great imagers are, with no exceptions known to me, meticulous and generous with their data acquisition and processing details. We all learn from it. We all set our own sights a little higher because of it. We ASPIRE because of it.
I'm in two minds on this topic and have thought long about it. Coming from a photographic background I personally considered I could say "this is my photo" if I took it with a camera I owned. If I took it on someone elses camera it wasn't my photo, or someone took a photo on my camera was theirs too. No reason behind it, just how I feel about the ownership or saying its my photo. I don't expect others to feel the same way. Also if I attended an event where a friend was participating, I would give them a copy of all the jpegs I took. Unless it was a specifically paying gig where ownership, delivery etc is part of the contract. I guess part of my logic is ownership of the equipment, setting/controlling the equipment and post processing myself.
As for buying scope time I guess there are other factors involved. I don't think theres any problem processing the raw data and adding it to your gallery as long as you attribute it with the gear used. So if you processed something from the Hubble archive I would expect that to be clearly labelled with the photo, likewise filters used but as for caling it "your photo" I would object to that.Maybe something like "my reprocessing of Hubble's M31 " or similar wording. To me saying its "mine" implies I had full control and access to the equipment used to capture and process the photons. Also implies have have some skill and knowledge of what I was doing in capturing the shot, why I frame a certain way, why I chose particular settings.
In some ways its a divisor between the "wills" and the "cants". A Will will learn and take the effort to try to get a good result with what they have, or buy the right gear they need accepting advice. The Cants just throw money at a problem assuming it will improve their astrophotos. Like people who get a dslr kit for xmas and now call themselves a photographer. The truth shows in their shots but not to them or their mates.
Like good photographs good astrophotographs are not just about the gear, and of course you never see the blurry shots a good photographer took or the fails nasa made. Its easy to overprocess many photographs and easy to spot them. I've made tons but I try to learn from them, going back over old shots looking for better ways to "develop" them from my raws again to get to a better looking image so for me astrophotography is 1% camera setting, 99% in front of the screen processing .
I've looked at hiring scope time for some shots I want that I know are beyond my capabilities. When I do they won't be "my shots". Ironically I have gear gathering dust that deserves to be in a remote ob but thats not an option for me either, its depressing an acquired physically disability has cut off access to my own gear I never got to use in "full anger"
Hiring for me is almost "giving in" (not my opinion of those who do) I just get the most pride and enjoyment in making the most of the hardware/software I own and it feels a cheat to just "pay" for part of the process. Its a purely personal opinion I direct at myself only, its fine if you can live with yourself taking an easy option when other options are available, its not for me. Strangely automation I don't have a problem with as its always a case of configuring it yourself so you still have to understand the process its repeating.
It's a normal thing in comet & variable star observing, nova hunting etc because it allows people to access sky areas that may not be available to them locally. It's common for instance to see images of southern comets taken by people in, say, northern Europe. They'll contribute astrometry, m2 and other comet measurements and these extra measures on top of what used to be available are extremely valuable. Japanese nova hunters will often use Australian-based telescopes where it might get them earlier, better or locally-unavailable fields. And by using scopes set up in optimal areas (clear dark skies, high altitude) you can often get much better data than from home. It is also customary to identify the scope & camera used so you'll see iTelescope, Slooh etc plus other details either on the image or in submitted text. But no-one bothers to say "hey, here's a pic I took with Slooh!" anymore, far too run-of-the-mill LOL.
I've never used remote telescopes myself, simply because it costs money and I have other priorities!
The difference between AP and spectroscopy is that the original raw data must be maintained.
We are allowed to do the minimum of post processing - background sky removal, cosmic hits but that's about it.
There are many targets the professionals would like to see the amateur work on, but sky access, weather and instrument capabilities work against us.
I for one would love to be able to access a larger remote telescope set up with a suitable spectroscope and obtain worthwhile data - why not???
Answering Glens original post, no I don't think there is anything wrong with what you have described at all. In fact, if it is the processing part that you really like (rather than the whole fishing trip that astroimaging can be) then, hey, it's a good way to do it for some it's certainly an alternative to labouring away with uncooperative gear under the light of a dim red torch
I do however have a big problem with such data being used in an imaging competition, unless there is a specific category, or the whole competition is for, robotically acquired data (ala APOTY), particularly if just the data itself was paid for with no input from the processor in its acquisition.
I do agree with Mike, the line does get drawn when it comes to competition unless it is the purpose of said competition. The Hubble Legacy Archive comes to mind where there is a dedicated competition to who can produce the best image with data only from there. I have attempted to play with Hubble data on one or two occasions, it isn't the easiest to work with!
Was interesting looking at some of the WCS data (globular cluster research), in some regions it is like "We want photometric data on this mag 19 GC" so Hubble did it. Hubble also saturated every star mag 13 and below!
In my mind what it comes down to is where do you draw the line? Rick Stevenson pays a monthly amount (along with a group of others) to keep SRO up and running. It is no different to if you were to spend a set amount every month for data from iTelescope.net.
Where is the line between hiring time and having a permanent setup somewhere that you don't need to maintain? It is just like a big payment up front for later free access; ACP (generally the software used in such a situation) does everything for you and you just wait for the data to roll in.
Alchemy (Clive) said it well earlier in the thread.
In my mind what it comes down to is where do you draw the line? Rick Stevenson pays a monthly amount (along with a group of others) to keep SRO up and running. It is no different to if you were to spend a set amount every month for data from iTelescope.net.
Our SRO group is a bit different to iTelescope, IMO. We operate the scope ourselves, debug problems, make modifications to the imaging train, etc. as a team with involvement from all the members. iTelescope is a bit more like the DSW subscription services. You pay money and get data but don't have any involvement in the design and running of the scope.
I really enjoy getting out under the stars and capturing data hands on, but I don't have the time to do it that often. Having access to remote systems gives me the opportunity to spend more time on the part of imaging that I find most challenging (processing.)
I don't care where people get their data from so long as they don't misrepresent the source
I agree with you Rick My point is just simply, where does the line get drawn. I personally don't mind how people get their data as long as it is credited for its location.
it's certainly an alternative to labouring away with uncooperative gear under the light of a dim red torch 
My point is just simply, where does the line get drawn. I personally don't mind how people get their data as long as it is credited for its location.
