As I suggested, attend the “Advanced Imaging Conference” in San Jose in November. You will meet quite a few of these folks. You will also learn a LOT about imaging and meet some cool folks. There are folks in any hobby with a butt load of money. A few of the imagers are Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and as a result have the tech ability, the interest, AND the money for this. I would agree in some ways they are not true amateurs if they spend that kind of money on the hobby but if the definition of amateur is “not-for-profit”, then even big buck types qualify because they are not making money from their images (few do).

“You have to admit, though, that there are people out there with more money than sense who simply buy the most expensive equipment they can find because they think it will guarantee good results. Don’t say there aren’t, cause I’ve met ‘em.”

It is not all about equipment. Good equipment still needs good setup and good operation which require skill and experience. You can’t just buy or rent the equipment and get good results unless you rent a scope that others have set up (but then they are not truly your images, IMHO – setup and operation are a BIG part of the process). Good equipment and a poor operator = poor data and poor data = poor images.

Basically there are two parts to a good image:

1) Good data which comes from a good operator, well made, precise equipment, and good sky conditions.

2) Good processing which comes from decent software and knowledge and experience.

Any good image w/o all of the above is simply an aberrant fluke and will be rare.

I’ll watch this space to see if anybody succeeded in submitting.

I think the fact is that most amateurs can’t afford to spend $25K+ on equipment because, well, they’re amateurs. i.e. someone who does something they love in their spare time while balancing the hobby with a job, kids, mortgage, etc, etc.

I know a handful of amateur astrophotographers who do serious work (the kind of people CCDMan is talking about), and none of them would agree with DavidLee. These are the kind of people who have an obsession with this hobby. They spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on this equipment, not only on the optics, but also on the PC’s, software, hardware, observatories (remote, and on-site), land, buildings, metal-fab equipment, etc etc. Generally, the people who are willing to spend this kind of money want to make sure they know how to get results. Hence, they get those results more often than they don’t.

@DavidLee “But some of us have learned how to do GREAT work with much less…..sometimes even BETTER than what comes out of top-notch equipment. Just because an astrophotographer owns that stuff, doesn’t mean he can take good images with it.”

Tripe. The people who take crap astro shots with Celestron/Meade VASTLY outnumber the people who take even sub-par shots with the high-end stuff, even after adjusting for the higher numbers of people with low-end equipment.

The fact is, the people who buy expensive equipment more often than not have a drive to create high quality images. They are not limited by their equipment, they are limited by their own ability to learn to use it. People who buy Celestron or Meade may have the same drive, but they ARE limited by their equipment, as well as their ability to learn to use it.

Learn the sky first, then take pictures of it.

Not trying to violate Wil’s rule, but there’s something that bugs me about people who think they need thousands of dollars worth of equipment to take astrophotos. The images I linked above were taken with a borrowed (from my local club) schmidt camera on a run-of-the-mill production Meade SCT. I hypered the film myself in a styrofoam cooler and developed it in my bathroom.

You can take amazing pictures with nothing more than a camera, tripod and cable lock and a little imagination.

Before you spend one dollar, look up your local club. They will be a wealth of knowlege and probably equipment that you can get experience with before spending your own money.

I don’t know what kind of “amateurs” you hang out with, but I didn’t spend a large 6-figure amount for my -house-, to say nothing of any optics.

Personally, I think people who think they need to spend thousands on equipment to get good results are the same people who would pay $500 for a wooden stereo volume knob or $5000 for a pair of speaker cables.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/skymapper/index.php

@Canadian Skeptic: Take some photos in Canada, drive over the border, visit some buddies for a few weeks, and put in an entry anyway. Or is there something about “US residency”?

@DavidLee: I think you’re trying to convince someone who knows everything. I’m sure most people who have done any serious work would agree with you. I’ve been amazed at what people produce with el-cheapo scopes like the Meade and Celestron (or even a camera on a tripod). You can buy even cheaper excellent telescopes from China (but you need to find a source that knows what they’re doing). I think Meade vs. Celestron is more of a religious thing; some folks in one camp always rant about how the other one’s a piece of rubbish. It doesn’t even matter that someone may fiddle a lot to get something to work (and I’ve never seen anyone waste more time fiddling with a Meade than a Celestron), it is only the end result which matters. Think of it this way: if the brand of telescope were not set and someone with a Celestron lost to someone with a Meade, would the judges change their mind and say “oh, we made a mistake, a Meade is garbage so we really meant to give the award to the Celestron guy”?

http://messagesfromearth.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/battlestar_galactica_wallpapers_800x600.jpg?w=469&h=288

I wonder what I win?

He apparently was so discouraged by his telescope shortcomings that he could not bring himself to invest in even a modest camera …

Very nice picture of the Milky Way.

That you consent to have your name, likeness and photograph used by Celestron for publicity or advertising purposes without further compensation if you are declared the winner.

Definitely more acceptable.

Being in Canada just gets worse and worse!

I would totally be all-up-ons otherwise. Mine are getting so much better! Dang-nabbit!

http://somecanadianskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/05/stacked.html. I have to post just for my own edification at not being able to enter.

That is total nonsense. I have had many friends with Meade (and Celestron) equipment (and none who kept it by choice for imaging) and it is garbage compared to proper equipment. Average optics at best, low precision (often plastic) gearing, flimsy mounts, and more. Sure, you can get OK images with that stuff but only after fighting, rebuilding, and tweaking until you want to smash it with a hammer. Been there and done that since 1993. Just because good images CAN be done with poor equipment (with great struggle) and POOR images can be done with good equipment (there are lots of wealthy incompetents out there) does not change the fact that poor equipment is still poor equipment. Are you seriously saying that with Meade equipment you can reliably do images the likes of Russ Croman, Ken Crawford, Robert Gendler and many others that use high end equipment? If so, every high end imager I have ever talked to (and I know many of them personally so HAVE talked to them) would disagree with you. Your post insults the judgement of most of the top amateur astroimagers in the world. They did not buy the good stuff because they were too stupid buy Meade. You get what you pay for.