Remote imaging experiances

[carastro]

Quote

So, presumably, using Olly's gear, set up by him doesn't count.

Bit of a grey area.  I've been to Olly's place a few years ago and got some great images and learnt a lot from him, but always felt a little like it wasn't completely my image, I didn't own or set up the equipment.  Also got banned from a forum IOW contest with them because I was using some-one else's equipment.  I guess they are 2/3 yours.

Carole 

[Demonperformer]

Thanks. That starts to clarify things.

[tomato]

“Well, I downloaded some free to access data from DSW and after 30 mins in Startools got the attached. Image Acquisition by the staff at Deep Sky West Remote Observatory (www,DeepSkyWest.com)

This has shown me three things:

1. I can mangle up good data just as well as my own.

2. It does not give me the same buzz as processing my own data.

3. Processing good SNR subs is waaay easier than the stuff captured from my own backyard.

I can feel another quote coming on, "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard".

[Allinthehead]

28 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

So, presumably, using Olly's gear, set up by him doesn't count.

I suppose if we take an analogy of terrestrial photography, if the photographer takes a shot with a borrowed camera it's his photo he took it and processed it. 

[PatrickGilliland]

4 hours ago, wxsatuser said:

Not sure on what basis the amount of subs is set, certainly more would'nt hurt.

In response to that the users choose in live mode, they chose targets and how many subs from templates options - specifics can be submitted for targets that require a specific consideration.  The basic model is a little more than is required just to be sure  

Here is an example of what I could do with the data.

 

 

[sloz1664]

Personally, If you weigh up all the pro's and con's, it's a hobby and you can do what you want to do. Whatever you feel comfortable with, and what satisfies "you" should matter.

Steve

[henry b]

PETER, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE WORKED YOUR APPRENTISHIP AND EARNED YOUR SKILLS, MOVE ON AND MANAGE THOSE SKILLS TO SATISFY YOUR OTHER TECHNICAL NEEDS LIKE PROCESSING THE DATA , ANY DATA .. LET THE OTHERS CATCH UP AND CATCH ON !!!!

[Demonperformer]

Henry

Friendly request. Do you think you could turn off the capitals? Internet etiquette considers it to be shouting.

Thanks.

[Uranium235]

lol....

[PatrickGilliland]

9 minutes ago, Uranium235 said:

lol....

I think that is just a really small man

[Tomatobro]

Keep practicing your processing skills Tomato......I will get the Esprit 150 up and running in time for the next clear night (Easter according to my pine cone weather station)

[Barry-Wilson]

5 hours ago, RayD said:

Is this not what @Barry-Wilsonand @gnomusdo with E-Eye (I think that is the place) with all their own kit installed by them, and then operated remotely by them, including selecting targets etc?

It's hard enough planning my own remote observatory at my own house in Spain, so kudos to those who go this route.

I think @ollypenrice had it spot on when he said that you always need a "muggins" on the ground to reset something or change a cable etc. which is what makes setting up your own remote site so hard.  This is what I am working hard in trying to overcome now, so the hosting sites are great for this scenario.

Yes Ray, this is what Steve and I have done - all our own equipment, tested in the UK all assembled/together for 5 months, driven out to Spain, 3 days setting up with our own fair hands (helped also by the fair hands of Mrs Gnomus), and together we decide on the imaging plan and alternate who is operating (done via TV), both share the data, both share the monthly rental, both share the discussions and decision making.  It's a team effort and very rewarding.

Both of us have home automated observatories too.

Peter - if you want to have an automated remote setup as part of a team sharing equipment, resources, decisions etc, and you have the budget and motivation, I can heartily recommend it.  You have the necessary experience and skills already and the number of opportunities for remote hosting is gradually growing I would guess.

HTH

[ollypenrice]

5 hours ago, Demonperformer said:

Have you been hacking the phone in my camera???

Get outta here, I can't even send a text message!

Olly

[ollypenrice]

5 hours ago, carastro said:

Bit of a grey area.  I've been to Olly's place a few years ago and got some great images and learnt a lot from him, but always felt a little like it wasn't completely my image, I didn't own or set up the equipment.  Also got banned from a forum IOW contest with them because I was using some-one else's equipment.  I guess they are 2/3 yours.

Carole 

I think the professionals would be bemused by this thread. Very occasioanally, at the start of an evening's astronomy here, we see a laser beam rising vertically from a point a little west of south and behind the hills which form our horizon. It is never on for long and emanates from the professional Observatoire de Haute Provence, the observatory which discovered the first exoplanet - around 51 Pegasi. Or did it? The researchers who crunched the numbers and defined the observations were Didier Meloz and Michel Mayor from the University of Geneva. The observations were set up by the observatory technicians based on their requests. I would guess that it has been a very long time, perhaps a hundred years or more, since a significant professional discovery has been done by a professional researcher managing his own instruments.

Here's this particular story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51_Pegasi_b

I regard your captures here as yours, Carole. I was just what the professionals call a 'night assistant.'

Olly

 

 

[Allinthehead]

Another analogy could be like when an artist covers a song. It's not their song, they didn't write it, but they did put their own twist on it. Anyone who goes to the bother of putting their stamp on something deserves credit for doing so. Processing is a skill, and a massive part of what we do.

[DaveS]

I think Olly has raised a valid point regarding professional astronomers. I guess the ultimate in remote imaging is Hubble. The astronomers are nowhere near the telescope, there isn't even a tech on board. Yet I have no doubt they regard the data as theirs.

As a BTW, I have a teacher's account with the Liverpool Telescope, so can request images from a professional telescope, I just have to share 10% of 'scope time with lots of other school users.

[Demonperformer]

11 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I think the professionals would be bemused by this thread. Very occasioanally, at the start of an evening's astronomy here, we see a laser beam rising vertically from a point a little west of south and behind the hills which form our horizon. It is never on for long and emanates from the professional Observatoire de Haute Provence, the observatory which discovered the first exoplanet - around 51 Pegasi. Or did it? The researchers who crunched the numbers and defined the observations were Didier Meloz and Michel Mayor from the University of Geneva. The observations were set up by the observatory technicians based on their requests. I would guess that it has been a very long time, perhaps a hundred years or more, since a significant professional discovery has been done by a professional researcher managing his own instruments.

Here's this particular story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51_Pegasi_b

I regard your captures here as yours, Carole. I was just what the professionals call a 'night assistant.'

Olly

I have been thinking about this through the "wee small hours of the morning" and have just re-read the original paper. Of particular relevence to this discussion, I submit, is the statement Our measurements are made with the new fibre-fed echelle spectrograph ELODIE of the Haute-Provence Observatory, France [their words, my emphasis]. Whilst (quite rightly) acknowledging where the measurements were made, there is no suggestion that the measurements are anything other than theirs.

If it is good enough for peer-reviewed professional publication, it is good enough for me ...

Thank you, Olly, for raising the conversation above the "this is what I think because this is what I think" level - in which, admittedly, I was also engaging.

[tooth_dr]

But remember none of this is real astronomy 

[Jkulin]

I've been reading this thread with interest, my thoughts are that there are three clear categories: -

1. Home Observatory/Back Yard Imaging.

2. Remote Observatory with own equipment and control.

3. Remote Equipment not owned or maintained by the imager paying on an time rate or image rate.

All have their various merits and views, however for competitions etc. they should be categorised, with 1 & 2 being classed together and 3 separately.

I have no particular views on the rights or wrongs, its a hobby to pass the time and enjoy and wherever people get their kick then great, life is too short to worry otherwise.

Peter, enjoy whatever floats your boat.

For me, where the nights are rubbish, then I would look to option 2 if I had the money and option 3 if not and I'd use Option 3 to practice and develop my skills, but I would always make it clear the type of capture that was involved if using 2 or 3.

[AKB]

9 minutes ago, Jkulin said:

For me, where the nights are rubbish, then I would look to option 2 if I had the money and option 3 if not and I'd use Option 3 to practice and develop my skills,

That's my approach, but I skip option 2 because I don’t need the hassle, and I don’t publish results from option 3.  That’s simply for self-improvement and to compare just how good/bad my own acquisition efforts are with option 1.

[PatrickGilliland]

4 hours ago, Demonperformer said:

the measurements are anything other than theirs.

While Olly provided a substantially more elegant presentation I agree, it is the advent of technology that actually moved us away from having to use observatories (other peoples gear) to being able to use our back gardens.

There are many forms of evolution - as long as your chosen route provides you with progression, you are transparent on sources and most importantly of all, you enjoy the hobby, the variety should be welcomed and encouraged IMO.  

 

[henry b]

PETER, I am interested what was your decision?  Henry B.

[KemalOz]

I remember listening to this discussion before on the AIC and since then I have thought about this;

Astrophotography is a form of photography and sometimes it overlaps with landscape photography. Just think about this, how many of you would download the raw files of someone's landscape shots, process them and publish it on your flickr page I might be wrong but I'm guessing no one would do it. Choosing the equipment, camera, lens, filter, tripod, etc. and making a composition out of them is a part of the artistic process. You don't have to own the equipment as you can rent or borrow it. But you have to be on the location in the early hours for the perfect light and freeze your butt off. Otherwise you can't do it. And you have to know about technical side of things, fstops, iso, exposure, focus,etc.

So, I'm considering astrophotography in the lines of photography, you don't have to buy all the equipment but you should be the one picking which one is going to work best for that target. And from collimation to polar alignment all processes are parts of the final product.

On the other hand, if you live in a country with bad climate like north of Europe or the UK then of course remote observatory makes sense. Because otherwise you can't image properly especially if you have limited time for this hobby. Or if we want to image the southern skies, traveling would be impossible with all the equipment. Hence using a remote service is the only way to it. So, there is a strong argument for it. But I also thing the equipment should be chosen and fully controlled by the “artist”.

I don't like people just processing already acquired data by someone else. To me that doesn't make sense, because why don't we all just use hubble's data? Why do we even bother? We can't top that anyway, so what's the point of buying and setting up anything for ourselves? We can just process images from professional observatories around the world and from the orbit…

 

[ollypenrice]

23 minutes ago, KemalOz said:

I remember listening to this discussion before on the AIC and since then I have thought about this;

 

Astrophotography is a form of photography and sometimes it overlaps with landscape photography. Just think about this, how many of you would download the raw files of someone's landscape shots, process them and publish it on your flickr page I might be wrong but I'm guessing no one would do it. Choosing the equipment, camera, lens, filter, tripod, etc. and making a composition out of them is a part of the artistic process. You don't have to own the equipment as you can rent or borrow it. But you have to be on the location in the early hours for the perfect light and freeze your butt off. Otherwise you can't do it. And you have to know about technical side of things, fstops, iso, exposure, focus,etc.

 

So, I'm considering astrophotography in the lines of photography, you don't have to buy all the equipment but you should be the one picking which one is going to work best for that target. And from collimation to polar alignment all processes are parts of the final product.

 

On the other hand, if you live in a country with bad climate like north of Europe or the UK then of course remote observatory makes sense. Because otherwise you can't image properly especially if you have limited time for this hobby. Or if we want to image the southern skies, traveling would be impossible with all the equipment. Hence using a remote service is the only way to it. So, there is a strong argument for it. But I also thing the equipment should be chosen and fully controlled by the “artist”.

 

I don't like people just processing already acquired data by someone else. To me that doesn't make sense, because why don't we all just use hubble's data? Why do we even bother? We can't top that anyway, so what's the point of buying and setting up anything for ourselves? We can just process images from professional observatories around the world and from the orbit…

 

 

The problem with analogies is that they only fit where they fit. Where they don't fit, they don't.  So for me the landscape photography/DS astrophotography analogy has a lot of areas in which it doesn't fit.

- The astro object's lighting is invariant, not depending on the time of terrestrial day or location - provided it's locally dark and the horizon isn't in the way. 

- The terrestrial photographer's frozen butt and aching legs will be present in the picture, even if only implicitly. But they won't be present in an astrophoto at all.

- The local surroundings don't feature in the image.

- The target is at infinity and observable from only one point (the Earth.) This removes most, but not all, opportunities to vary the composition.

- The target doesn't change over time, so there is no 'moment' to capture. OK the odd supernova...

- The best terrestrial photographers try to minimize the input in processing while processing is the name of the game in AP.

So although the analogy holds in some respects, in others it doesn't and I feel I can think more clearly without it.

Olly

[KemalOz]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

The problem with analogies is that they only fit where they fit. Where they don't fit, they don't.  So for me the landscape photography/DS astrophotography analogy has a lot of areas in which it doesn't fit.

- The astro object's lighting is invariant, not depending on the time of terrestrial day or location - provided it's locally dark and the horizon isn't in the way. 

- The terrestrial photographer's frozen butt and aching legs will be present in the picture, even if only implicitly. But they won't be present in an astrophoto at all.

- The local surroundings don't feature in the image.

- The target is at infinity and observable from only one point (the Earth.) This removes most, but not all, opportunities to vary the composition.

- The target doesn't change over time, so there is no 'moment' to capture. OK the odd supernova...

- The best terrestrial photographers try to minimize the input in processing while processing is the name of the game in AP.

So although the analogy holds in some respects, in others it doesn't and I feel I can think more clearly without it.

Olly

You are complete disregarding widefield astrophotography which is probably the most common type of astrophotography that people do. There is a good example; https://astrob.in/99606/0/

So location is also important if you want to put Stonehenge in front of milky way or Polaris(for star trails). This is the type of astroimaging where it almost completely overlaps with landscape photography. And as I said no one would take you seriously as a photographer if you process other people's landscape shots and put it on your flickr page. I might be wrong on this but I have never seen it happening.  

And for longer focal length imaging of deep space targets, traveling to a dark site with good seeing is very common practice. That's why I have said remote observatories are very logical choices for people that are living in areas with bad climate or very heavy light pollution. So, finding a good location and getting there is a part of getting better resolution and contrast.

Composition and framing of objects could change depending on the focal length and pixel size chosen by the imager. And it requires technical knowledge and experience to match your optics to your seeing or again traveling to places with better seeing.

Many landscape objects that people shoot doesn't change that much overtime either. There are seasonal changes but Mt Kilimanjaro has been the same for a long time. On the other hand, there are sudden changes within the solar system.  

The level of processing is of course not the same but it is very common practice to shoot HDR photos these days so landscape photographers definitely use at least Lightroom for editing their work.

 

But you haven't responded to my main question; why do we even bother with buying/renting and setting up our own equipment if we can just use available data? Why don't we all use Hubble's public database and see which of us better at processing? We can all get rid of the hassle if that is the same as using our own equipment (including remote observatory) for acquiring data.