|
List members,
I think that what Tony mentioned below is going in one ear
and out the other for most. If you don't want to know about any
new techniques and you don't want to learn anything further
then exclude all digital imaging (ccd discussions).
As an example, has anyone learned anything from Rob Ghendler
since he's been here?
I'm neutral on a second list, but an interesting thought is that
the guys
with FLI and SLX cameras don't show up on the SBIG list but
might have some interest in a second apml hybrid list.
This might make the film only crew cringe.
I'm here to learn new things and the new ideas are coming from the
ccd
guys or the people going to ccd. I have as well noticed that there
are only
a scant few really accomplished ccd photographers who don't use the
film methods as a basis of their image processing techniques.
I personally would rather see a list with every type of astrophotography
known. If this was possible with little noise and no "mines better
than yours" it would be quite a list to belong to.
Colt Bednorz
Tony Hallas wrote:
No.... it's not like that, is it? The reality of this situation is that
most of you are clamoring to know more and more about digital processing,
and that is a good thing. The only difference between a typical "film"
person today and a CCD person is the origin of the data... BFD.
I learned "CCD" in one lousy week... the reason I could do this is that
I already was 80% there... in fact I prefer, and believe, that the digital
techniques that I learned processing film are BETTER than any "canned"
programs that you can buy for this purpose. Once you learn operation of
the camera and the reduction process, it's all the same DIGITAL PROCESSING...
sooooo.... unless you still only do your work with an enlarger, no computer...
please, any protest over the origin of the DIGITAL DATA is pure hypocrisy,
isn't it?
Tony
|