Grave concerns over the 2008 Astro Imaging competition at SPSP

[h0ughy (David)]

OK I downloaded the form and saved it to use later as a reference to get things ready for this years SPSP imaging comp.
Then I really read it thoroughly today!!

Now I am concerned, really concerned!

It looks as though to me it allows people to submit images taken on internet “rent-a-scopes” to quote from the rules please pay particular attention to rule 4

“4. All images must be the sole work of the entrant. The acquisition equipment must have been under their exclusive control of the entrant at the time the image data was acquired, with all subsequent processing undertaken by the entrant. The inclusion of data obtained from other imagers or public sources is prohibited.”

Undoubtedly I agree that all images must be the work of the entrant – that’s why you enter!!! But it’s the obscure description of the next part of the sentence that really gets me going. “The acquisition equipment must have been under their exclusive control of the entrant at the time the image data was acquired” the “acquisition equipment” as far as I can determine could be the internet as you can “control” a scope remotely anywhere!! I really thought it was to be with your own gear and camera, your own ability to guide and set up your own equipment, and of course your own processing. Some of these remote sites actually allow you to get “them” to process the captured image data that you obtained through some scope you have no hope of owning unless a rich uncle snuffs it and leaves you the estate!!! All this for the pleasurable amount of roughly $100 US per hour for you to image through a 14” RC or something bigger. Bloody expensive potential competition image if you ask me?

I might be jumping the gun here and totally off the beaten track, but this is what I interpret from the rules of the competition.

So I will post the rules for all to read – see what you think? Am I completely stir crazy and blame the weather, or is that what you understand the rules to be saying as well?

[PhotonCollector (Paul)]

Maybe this is to allow for those members of the SPSP Committee who are also part of the rentascope franchise ?

[Ric]

To me it wouldn't be in the spirit of the competition to remote image.

I suppose the organisers could just add an extra category to cover that possibility.

[rogerg (Roger)]

I wonder if it makes that much difference? It seems a little unfair, but it also seems a little unfair that a lowly suburban mortgage payer like myself would be competing against a neuro surgeon, or ... whoever, that can afford to buy the 20" RC and STL-11000 for themselves, or a retired person who may have an average telescope but lots more time ... but ... I accept it as "that's life"

I have often thought about this in relation to terrestrial photography competitions. In those I don't think the equipment usually has any significant impact on the judging. But how to translate that to astronomy where it's so equipment focussed? I've never been sure how to fairly judge a astro photography competition because of that.

The person using the rent-a-scope does still have to chose a nice subject, frame it well, choose the right exposure and process the image well....

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

So that means, David, that you should have to own the equipment you use to take a photograph? What if I were to take my OTA and camera, and go to a commercial observatory to use one of their mounts because I don't have a guided mount? Is that not kosher?

Maybe it should be worded such that it is expected that you are present, in person, when the equipment - whatever and wherever it is - is used, and that it is under your immediate control. The raw image data collected would then be required to be processed by you personally.

[turbo_pascale (Rob)]

I think the wording is clear enough. So what if you use a remote scope? Most remote scopes only take the exposures for you - they don't process them (maybe dark subtract at best).

Yep, you're at some advantage of being able to use premium equipment to get good raw data, but you still have to do the rest yourself.

I see no problem with this at all. If you can afford to spend the money to get the data, why not? Let's say you want to get 4 hours of exposures. That's USD$400 (or so). That's a lot of money to spend to win a regional astrophoto comp - AND you still have to be better than everyone else. Your ego would have to be pretty big to spend this kind of money to win a competition don't you think?
Last year's malin awards overall winner used a DSLR - up against high end RC's and cooled CCD's worth $50K+.

As long as you're not sucking down hubble images and merging them in to your own exposures, who cares really?

Slightly off-topic though, my opinion on astro photo comps has always been making sections in the comp based on general equipment category, not the person doing it. Then, when the equipment disparity is taken out of it to some degree (as best it can), then you are focusing on the skills of the imager in both the artistic and processing skills they have.

[AJames]

I seems to me you have two choices.

Submit your images under their rules (however distorted) or just not enter the competition.
Reading this seems there is far more at stake - akin to be more like the shabby competition for Miss World - and all the machinations that THAT entails - than among amateur astronomers doing their best all mostly producing absolutely significant wonderful works.
IMO I think that the judges of the images are just after original works by Imagers. Submissions are obviously to be judged impartially, among at least the entries they received - and how they were obtained.
Frankly, I would be more far impressed with good images taken in a homemade 10.5cm telescope and camera, than someone who has all the (expensive) bells and whistles available to take the images.
Frankly, I have been far more impressed with the Imagers in IIS and their works, than any mere competition made by an unknown selection of their presumed peers. If I had the money, I'd give everyone who presents an image $1000 bucks, for the pleasure I get is viewing excellent images by seemingly dedicated and quality amateur photographers for FREE.

It should be all about non-monetary pride and personal achievement.

As one who doesn't have the opportunity to undertake such endeavours...
Regardless.
Mes' Tips My Lid to You...

[tornado33]

Heres my 2 cents worth. Consider the work in setting up a rig from scratch. You have to source all the gear. The set it up. Polar alingment is a very important part of that, especialy for portable setups, but even in fixed observatories it still has to be done when it is first set up. Collimation, accurate focus, locating the objects and so on. A failure in just one of these processes can ruin efforts to obtain good images.

In remote imaging all of these things have been done for you. Yes, you need to decide what object to image, perhaps adjust the framing of it, and decide what LRGB image length and numbers to take, and then process them. But seeing all the setting up of the gear is done for you, it may be fair to have a separate remote imaging section, where remote imagers can compete on a level playing field, and a DSLR imaging section, where DSLR imagers can also compete on a level field.

Remote imaging, though it doesnt involve buying such superexpensive gear, is necessarily costly on a per hour basis as
1 the initial purchase /setup costs of the observatories are so high, they need to be defrayed by charging enough per/hour
2 to get the best benefit from these high quality scopes/mounts, one may as well go very deep, several hours per object, hence a high cost per object
Scott

[Peter Ward]

While I've never been motivated to enter the SPSP comp, I don't see a problem with their rules. To get an extraordinary image does take some effort, and, for deeps sky at least, some seriously long exposures.

They have lots of different categories, so, again there many many types of images that can do well.

The Malin Awards are are quite different. While technical aspects of an image do count (particularly the colour ! ) they don't count that much.... Terry Cuttle's overall winning image had all the *right* elements: great technique, beautiful subject matter (McNaught) which was also framed superbly.

The fact that Terry chose to haul his rig up to the Glass-House mountains to get all those elements in made him a deserving winner.

Despite the heavy artillery in my backyard, the images I actually did well with were taken with very modest gear. Such is the nature of the DM awards which I suspect reward something fresh/different or a novel approach.

That's pretty hard to do with the vanilla/bright deep sky subjects: M42/M8/M17/M16/47 Tuc/Omega etc. have all been done to death...so choosing them as you subject you'd want to also do something out of the ordinary with them.

Just my two cents worth....

Peter

[davidpretorius]

dont worry houghy, do planetary images instead, only the cool dudes enter this comp, not internet astro lazies

[Bassnut (Fred)]

I totally agree with you Houghy.

Being a GRAS affiliate rules me out anyway due to clause 2 ("amateur"). I have a financial interest in Astrophotography.

But even if I could, I wouldnt enter with a GRAS scope image. Although many would see this as acceptable, and have good reasons, it doesnt feel right to me personally. Much of the image quality (regardless of equipment used) comes from gear set up and operation. Most of the expertise of the GRAS setup/operation is not of my doing.

I see an image entry as a product totally by the entrant, in every respect, if it isnt, then anything might as well be acceptable, it would be impossible to control.

If my (GRAS) gear was set up by me in my backyard, or even remote and totally done by me, then fair enough, but it aint, period.

I dont know exactly what the SPSP comp has in mind, this is just my personal opinion, and also dont have any problem with a comp that allows other than the entrants data/gear/processing, so long as its obvious and stated in the rules.

[Peter Ward]

Fred, never thought of it that way!....and you are right!

It doesn't make sense to discount all the aspects of instrument set-up eg:
Polar alignment
Colimination
Guider calibration
camera configuration (eg correct spacing) etc etc.

None of which can be done remotely and by definition must have been done by someone else.....hence "all my own work" *cannot be claimed by the entrant....remote users don't have to know one end of a telescope from another.

Just hand over the $ and click here.

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Much of the image quality (regardless of equipment used) comes from gear set up and operation. Most of the expertise of the GRAS setup/operation is not of my doing.

* O.k. it is possible you flew to New Mexico/wherever and set the whole thing up.

[gbeal]

Fat chance of me entering, or attending but I agree with you Huff, I have always maintained that if you are sitting next to the scope, getting dew on you, and freezing your nuts off, you are not doing it right.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Anyway Houghy, I think clause 4 is very well worded, I would see GRAS as a "public source" and therefore not valid in the SPSP comp.

Peter, although I had a part in physically setting up my G15 scope, having it available at any time to anyone for use takes an amazing amount of work, Im sure you would be stunned if you saw the time that went into it. And yes the items you list are all part of an images success, even a DSLR/standard lens on an EQ5 takes considerable skill (sheesh, MORE skill, you turn on a PME and go ;-). It all counts in the sweat that is expended in a comp entry.

[Peter Ward]

Preaching to the converted Fred....I started with a Royal 60mm achromat many, many, many moons ago... (yes, I remember F-Troop)

While I haven't quite got there (indeed, due the sheer lack of time) the access to my observatory via the web.... due me (often) being on the other side of the planet, is not a trivial task indeed !

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Im sure you would be stunned if you saw the time that went into it. And yes the items you list are all part of an images success, even a DSLR/standard lens on an EQ5 takes considerable skill ...

Also I continue to wuss out and still like to image through the AP glass

[Greg Priestley]

Hi all

This thread has just been drawn to my attention. As the organiser of the Astros at the SPSP, I'd like to actually provide a detailed response, but am currently stuck in Adelaide for work with another late night on the cards.

I will respond in detail when I get back to Sydney across the weekend or early next week.

The rule was very deliberately worded. I have very definitive view of what I intended.

You can continue to speculate if you like, but it would be better if you actually waited for something concrete then just muddying the water.

Cheers
Greg Priestley

[h0ughy (David)]

Originally Posted by Greg Priestley

Hi all

This thread has just been drawn to my attention. As the organiser of the Astros at the SPSP, I'd like to actually provide a detailed response, but am currently stuck in Adelaide for work with another late night on the cards.

I will respond in detail when I get back to Sydney across the weekend or early next week.

The rule was very deliberately worded. I have very definitive view of what I intended.

You can continue to speculate if you like, but it would be better if you actually waited for something concrete then just muddying the water.

Cheers
Greg Priestley

I look forward to that Greg, although I didnt expect the response that the thread seemed to generate as it is speculative and only my interpretation of rulings.


I look forward to hearing your view of your wording. enjoy your trip

[h0ughy (David)]

Originally Posted by davidpretorius

dont worry houghy, do planetary images instead, only the cool dudes enter this comp, not internet astro lazies

What me image planets - only in widefields Dave, only in widefields..............

[h0ughy (David)]

for the rest that added to the thread - thank you for conducting civil discussion and raising interesting points of view. Lets hope that one day we get clear skies..........

[Terry B]

Not adding to the debate but ?being obtuse. What is GRAS?