Compendium: Critique and Suggestions for 2010

[Rodstar (Rod)]

Full marks to Omaroo and the Iceinspace team for putting together the first IIS Compendium! Indeed, it may well be the first of this sort of thing ever produced in this country by an astronomical community, so everyone deserves a huge pat on the back.

I am keen to see this idea developed and grown to be the best it can be, and to set a shining example to the astronomical community world-wide. So, with that motivation in mind, I thought it worth having a thread to consider ways we could improve things next year.

May I say to Omaroo in particular, mate, that I do not want you to hear any criticism of you personally - I think you have done a fabulous job, and I take my hat off to you. I could not have come up with something like this in a million years, so thanks for your huge efforts and contribution. It is inspirational that this has actually happened - normally these ideas are discussed, but no one actually pulls out their finger to get it done.

So, here are my thoughts:

1. The compendium in its current form only provides an opportunity for astrophotographers from the IIS community to contribute. For those of us (who appear to be in the minority these days) who are avid visual astronomers, it would be good to have the chance to have our observing notes published as well. I would love to publish some notes of, say, a galaxy cluster. If we plan a bit next year, we could co-ordinate submissions of observing notes with images, or even get some images taken to go with observing notes of particular areas of the sky. Some of the observing notes could even be taken from observing notes posted during the year on the forum (with the writer's permission, of course).

2. Point 1 leads into my concern about the Compendium in its current form, that it does not provide any particular information about each object which would assist someone not so familiar with the night sky to understand what they are looking at. The first edition, of course, was produced with an expectation that only the "in crowd" would want to buy it. Given how much interest there has been in it, I think it would be good to start with the assumption for 2010 that there will be a wider audience, including family and friends (such as Christmas presents - I bought 2 compendia this year with the intention of giving one away), so we should endeavour to explain what the image is that we are looking at (eg that NGC 253 is a spiral galaxy so many light years in diameter and so many light years away in the constellation of Sculptor). I note that a few objects have some information - notably Centaurus A - I assume Mike Sidonio went to the trouble of providing this - good stuff, mate! This information will be of more interest to most than technical data about what equipment was used to create the image (it is all gobbledegook to me).

3. It would be good to include some ephemera so that the publication is of practical use. I note that this year Andrew James kindly offered to help contribute in this way, but his offer was not taken up. Having ephemera instantly widens the net of who might be interested in purchasing the publication - dare I say it, but visual observers, and not just astrophotographers, will be more enthused.

4. I like the idea that John Bambury expressed when the Compendium was first being discussed that perhaps there could be different catergories, with people entering their work and competing, with certain images being recognised as stand-outs. Without wishing to cause any offence, there are a few entries in the compendium that really are not up to publication - I know the idea is to reflect the full scope of abilities in the community, but we can recognise beginners in ways other than publishing what is clearly below par images. It is good to recognise the really outstanding achievements of those who are pushing the boundaries of amateur photography.

5. There are lots of typos in the publication. For example, on a number of occasions Eta Carinae is misspelt, NGC 253 is called NGC 254 etc. It may be worth proof reading by a few more people next year.

6. I was surprised how small the publication was. It really is rather like a slim-line Ikea catalogue in appearance. I for one would like to see some of those fabulous long exposure images blown up to a larger scale!!

Those are my thoughts (I say bracing myself). What say you??

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Interesting thoughts Rod

I'm not sure I like the idea of having observing notes in an imaging compendium though, although that would make for a nice seperate project for someone to undertake perhaps?

It would have been nice to have it a little bigger, I agree but the typos I didn't notice .

The variation in image info styles is quite nice I recon, this is not meant to be an all ecompasing text book remember.

Overall it is really quite excellent.

Mike

[leon]

Regardless of all the stuff that you guys are talking about, I don't give a rats arse, about the typo's, I don't give a rats arse, about anything else that some have mentioned.

I is one of the best publications from a group like ours anywhere.

Good on you Chris for the work and the dedication.

Stop being so picky, some of you.

Leon

[toryglen-boy (Duncan)]

Originally Posted by Rodstar

4. I like the idea that John Bambury expressed when the Compendium was first being discussed that perhaps there could be different catergories, with people entering their work and competing, with certain images being recognised as stand-outs. Without wishing to cause any offence, there are a few entries in the compendium that really are not up to publication - I know the idea is to reflect the full scope of abilities in the community, but we can recognise beginners in ways other than publishing what is clearly below par images. It is good to recognise the really outstanding achievements of those who are pushing the boundaries of amateur photography.

I think this in particular is a bad idea, and to be frank, completely goes against what the compendium goes out to achieve.

This for me was a book about "us", where everyone and anyone could contribute, and was encouraged to do so, but when you say things like work being entered into certain catagories and "comepting" this makes me shake my head, the image i put in would certainly not compete with alot of the people on here, and its probably the only half decent image i have taken, and thats why i am still trading on past glories, but it could have been next to a shot from Martin Pugh, or Peter Ward, or next to some shot with a snappy cam of the moon through an eyepiece on a dob, it just felt right because there was no competition, everyone was equal, and it felt great that to me, thats what the book was about.

Again, stuff like making certain images as standouts, goes against this to, some people can easily get hurt if thier name isnt mentioned, although this idea is meant with the best intention of honouring the hard work of forum member, it still for me screams "this is better than yours"

just my 2c's

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

It's our Compendium for all members of IIS to contribute to if they wish.

Not all of us have the ideal equipment nor the skills as yet to produce a near perfect image. The Compendium is a chance to display what we have achieved so far.
I'm going to enjoy watching the contributors images improve from year to year. To be able to look back and say, "that was their best work in 2009, look how much they've learned since then!!"

[stephenb (Stephen)]

Originally Posted by leon

Regardless of all the stuff that you guys are talking about, I don't give a rats arse, about the typo's, I don't give a rats arse, about anything else that some have mentioned.

I is one of the best publications from a group like ours anywhere.

Good on you Chris for the work and the dedication.

Stop being so picky, some of you.

Leon

here, here Leon

Turning the idea of any future compendium into the slightest form competition defeats the whole purpose of why it exists in the first place. It provided an outlet for local beginers in the field of imaging to have something recognised amongst their own peers.

Personally I do not care how good or bad the images are. If you want competition, go stick your images into the David Malin Awards.

My 2c + Duncan's 2c = 4c

[sheeny (Al)]

My 2c...

I really have no desire to see it change much. The concept as it is is pure and a true representation of images from IIS. It is a high quality production and something everyone can be proud of.

As for adding observation reports... mmm... I have mixed feelings about it. I can see a different book with observation reports and perhaps images selected or taken specially to enhance the report, but I don't think the mix of observing reports and the compendium in it's current form is likely to be as successful. I'd love to see the obs reports compendium as a separate project... it has a different audience really... while we would all appreciate it, non-astronomers would flick through the pretty pictures but likely to pass over detailed obs reports.

As for ephemera, again I think this is a different "market" and deserves a different document.

As for different categories and a competition, nothing will turn me off it quicker.

Al.

[leon]

I think some of you guys should back off and see what Chris and his mate could put together for us, yes us.

It the book is a first off, and is fantastic, so all you picky people stand back, you are annoying, go and find something else to do.

Mike, and other moderators let this run, because this pisses me off.


Leon

[TrevorW]

Its the imager's high school year book

I don't believe it intended to be anything else

[marki]

I like mine as it is. People at all skill levels got in there and contributed. There are many other outlets for competition and I believe turning this fine book into an exclusive entry only venture would nullify the goals Chris set out to achieve in the first place (team and community building). I also believe by doing this it would lose appeal to most folks and you would struggle to sell enough to cover production costs. I do agree a little more info on the objects in the pics would be good.

Mark

[leon]

Give it a rest guys, you must have got in before my last post.

Leon

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by toryglen-boy

I think this in particular is a bad idea, and to be frank, completely goes against what the compendium goes out to achieve.

This for me was a book about "us", where everyone and anyone could contribute, and was encouraged to do so

Well Duncan you're saying it but you're only telling 1/4 of the story. A book about "US" ? But "US" clearly according to the new rules only encompasses imagers ? So it isn't about "US" its now about "some of us"

Fact is I tried to take astro images before most of the people stickin their name in lights in the almanac knew their arse from their elbow, but sadly I couldn't take pictures worth squat and ended up with about 8,000 km worth of Kodak Ektachrome in the garbage can. But sad thing is it was a whole different world back then and to take decent images you needed to know a lot about astronomy and even more about photography. Now the naive can do decent work with simple equipment, a computer, a lot of time and a 1/4 of a brain. Whilst the the highly skilled still stand absolutely head and shoulders above the pupils, the pupils can easily look halfway clever. What should not be forgotten is the fact that this is a community where we all contribute for people to learn and one discipline should not stand above any other.

Cheers,
John B

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

The Compendium was originally conceived as a Coffee Table Book.
Full of pretty pictures taken by members of the forum.
No more no less.
If you don't like it don't buy it.
Enough said I think.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Ummm why is it unbelieveable, is there something inaccurate in something I said? I don't think so

Cheers,
John B

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

very hurtful to say the least

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Without being critical of anyone JJ there are an enormous number of people on IIS that have a presumption that they are exceptional astro imagers. I find that tag fits about a dozen or so people who are very highly skilled. Some are developing and learning fast. Unfortunately some of the pics in that compendium, without naming anyone, don't belong in any almanac and look like they were taken by a 10 year old with a box brownie. The skill level on IIS is widely divergent. The good are very good. But IMO the Almanac developed almost into an "anything goes".

Just my thoughts. I aint into being fair to the underpriveleged or the underachievers, just about whats, right , wrong and common sense.

Cheers,
John B

[marki]

I think Chris has done a great job, onya mate


Mark

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Just because ones skill level isn't the highest, that doesn't mean you can't be proud of what you've achieved.
We can't all afford the high end equipment, and I for one find it difficult to learn the finer skills needed to produce top quality work. I've accepted that fact, and it doesn't stop me from enjoying my chosen hobby.
But comments like the ones you made do make me question why I'm even bothering to continue doing it. I'll never be the best, so why try in the first place.

The Compendium ....
It's my baby, and without all of Chris' hard work it would never have come into being. I love it just the way it is, a collection of images taken by my fellow IIS'ers.
I'm so proud of what Chris has done, it's a credit to him.

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

This compendium has given the IIS community (imagers and 'others') a beautiful morale boost - kudos to the guys who inspired it.
But, realistically it's the imagers that produce the tangible "product" that often attract interested parties towards the hobby regardless of the perceived quality of the image. And, damn it, sorry to piss off the visual guys, but I don't want to READ a description of a nebula when a picture serves the purpose so much better.
This whole negative thread stinks of jealousy.
And as for putting down the guys trying their hardest to produce decent images - way to go!

ps...I do feel a bit incensed (and have a vested interest!) but I think some of Rodstar's initial comments do merit consideration, but other's posts have taken the debate elsewhere (probably mine too!).

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Originally Posted by leon

I think some of you guys should back off and see what Chris and his mate could put together for us, yes us.

It the book is a first off, and is fantastic, so all you picky people stand back, you are annoying, go and find something else to do.

Mike, and other moderators let this run, because this pisses me off.


Leon

Think of your blood pressure leon!!