Its difficult to compete

[Adam J]

8 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Do the SGL competitions have UK and other competitor categories? 

Regards Andrew 

I think competitions are a different subject to images printed in a magazine. 

[ApophisAstros]

Remembering how naive i was about imaging , when i first joined my local Astronomy Society , i was on cloud nine when , after a year or so of imaging one of my astro images was chosen to be published amongst others in the annual society calendar but alas am resigned never to be publish in a magazine as its alway the creme de la creme they seem to want.

Roger

[Keith Cooper]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

- Magazines are physically quite small and print resolution is lower than screen resolution so many of the advantages of extremely long exposure and very expensive equipment are lost in print. The print playing field, if you like, is much more level than the pitiless screen playing field with its potential for zooming in to full size and (hiss!!!) pixel peeping. 

Hi Olly, I don't think that's accurate. Magazines are printed at 300dpi, which is usually much higher than standard computer screen resolution. Though it's not really much of a problem these days as the image files submitted to us are usually large enough. If you're not sure, check in the settings on the software you're using, how large, in cm/inches, your image will appear at 300dpi. This is why, going back even 10 years ago, many images were presented small in the magazine, because at 300dpi they would not have been that large, and printing them larger would see them lose detail and become a little pixelated. With today's larger format cameras it's a different story, most images submitted are large enough and we do print quite a few images in the gallery at half-page or full page size, or even as double-page spreads (in response to someone who mentioned one of the reasons they stopped buying mags is because images were presented small in magazines).

Another thing to be aware of is that magazines print in CYMK, whereas computer screens display RGB. This can sometimes result in some colours looking a little off when printed as they don't  seem to always translate exactly from RGB to CYMK. Also, we find that images sometimes print darker than they appear on the screen, so it might be worth just brightening your images a tad if you want to avoid them looking too dark when printed. If we were publishing a book, we'd get proofs back and be able to identify which pages are too dark and get them fixed, but unfortunately on magazines we don't get that luxury.

[carastro]

Quote

 magazines print in CYMK, whereas computer screens display RGB. This can sometimes result in some colours looking a little off when printed as they don't  seem to always translate exactly from RGB to CYMK. Also, we find that images sometimes print darker than they appear on the screen, so it might be worth just brightening your images a tad if you want to avoid them looking too dark when printed. If we were publishing a book,

That is true, I get the annual astro Calendar printed for the local society and some of our images have come back darker than expected (which is not great for dim targets) so I have taken to brightening them a little before sending to the printer and also upping the dpi.

Carole 

 

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, Adam J said:

I think competitions are a different subject to images printed in a magazine. 

Like it or not your image is competing to catch the eye of the editor or his team . 

Maybe not exactly the same but both are about seeking recognition for your efforts.

Regards Andrew 

Edited November 18, 2019 by andrew s

[Thalestris24]

Reading some of the comments here I'm reminded of Scientific American who used to do a 'the amateur scientist' column until sadly it came to an end in 2001. I used to love reading it even though most of the experiments were beyond my ability to do, often simply because I didn't have the wherewithal - always seemed like Americans had access to so many things compared to the UK. But, anyway, I obviously never saw the contents of the column as in any way competing with professional science. It was complementary, educational, and fun, and could bring scientific principles and experiments into the sphere of enthusiasts. I think I view amateur astrophotography in a similar way. Some people have better kit than others, and some have darker and clearer skies than others. But we can all have a go and have fun and enjoyment on the way. Does it matter that I can't make images that are anything like as good as most people on here? Nah, not at all. I just like messing about with telescopes, cameras, computers, software, electronics, optics etc. I'm not in competition with anyone!

Louise

[Merlin66]

Surplus Shed have all the amateur scientist articles available on one CD!!!

It makes fascinating reading, something for everyone.

https://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/M2071.html

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Merlin66
info added

[Stub Mandrel]

Astronomers should be thankful!

I edit a magazine about model engineering. Our articles are photo heavy, which can in some cases means 20-odd photos of a grey bit of metal on  grey machines being worked with grey tools gradually getting smaller... fortunately most of our readers are more interested in the process in question than great artistic merit but it does cheer me up when I get submissions with really good and varied photos.

[andrew s]

2 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Astronomers should be thankful!

I edit a magazine about model engineering. Our articles are photo heavy, which can in some cases means 20-odd photos of a grey bit of metal on  grey machines being worked with grey tools gradually getting smaller... fortunately most of our readers are more interested in the process in question than great artistic merit but it does cheer me up when I get submissions with really good and varied photos.

At least you can save on ink and just use gray scale 😀

Regards Andrew