Re: [APML] O.T. - artistic value

["Alson Wong" <alsonwong@earthlink.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Durant" <ccd43@hotmail.com>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] O.T. - artistic value


> I thought I heard Mike Stecker wanted to start a boycott of
SkyandTelescope,
> but none of the big name astrophotographers on Mt. Pinos (Hallas,
Fletcher,
> others) were interested.  Since, they are just peddling stuff,
> nickel-and-dime all over (planetariums, etc), getting images published for
> "free" in S&T/Astronomy (to promote their businesses).  Astrophotography
has
> to be one of the most (if not, THE most) challenging, expensive,
> time-consuming types of photography.  Why the market has gotten
"cheapened",
> by actions by a certain few (specifically, Sky&Telescope which doesn't pay
> for photos) and the astrophotographers who patronize them..is really not
> smart.  It's a reflection of the mentality of the amateur astronomy
> community (as a whole): unsophisticated & amateurish.

Yes, we're talking about _amateur_ astronomy, which means we do this as a
hobby, not for financial gain.  I've donated several of my photos to my club
and also mailed them to other people for no more than the cost of printing
and mailing.  I've invested a fair amount of time and money in terms of
equipment to be able to create such images, but since it's my time and my
money that's been spent, it's my perogative to do what I want with my
images.  I've submitted several images to S&T from my eclipse trip to
Africa, a trip that cost me almost $8000, for _free_ simply because they may
be of interest.  Would you prefer that I keep them to myself?  They're
already available for viewing on the Web for _free_.  And why do you have a
problem with _amateur_ astronomy being "amateurish?"  Do you consider
yourself to be a professional astronomer?  If so, what have you contributed
to the field?

> "I want stuff for cheap.."
> "I got this solar filter at RTMC..for ten bucks"
> ( it's a badge of honor among amateurs, to brag about how cheaply they got
> stuff at RTMC )
> "..it's cheap, cheap, cheap"
> ( Tony Hallas commenting on Fuji HQ100 film, for hypering, on APML )

What's wrong with getting things inexpensively if people are willing to sell
those things at that price?  Would you actually prefer to pay more for film
and equipment?  No seller would keep you from doing so, but most buyers
would not.

> a real RTMC conversation:
> amateur: "I built this here telescope for twelve bucks"
> response: "well, it looks like a twelve-buck telescope [ 2-bit machine ]"
>
> Like at amateur radio swap meets, it's known for amateurs "who go around
> ripping each other off".  Same thing, can be said for amateur astronomy.
> Look at the major amateur conventions:
>
> - NEAF
> Televue eyepiece blems bought for cheap, re-sold as "new" on Ebay.  see
> sci.astro.amateur for further commentary
>
> - RTMC
> this place is a zoo, for unscrupulous dealers.  the last RTMC was so bad,
I
> know of some major vendors who are not going back next year.  it's really
> deteriorated, RTMC has renamed itself as an "Expo".  free rides for
> wives/kids for shopping at Big Bear.  Huh?  whatever happened to ATM'ing??
> Scott Losmandy was commenting on some of the tutti-frutti-nutti stuff that
> was being sold there a few yrs ago.  it resembles a public swap meet:
> trinkets of every conceivable variety.  the infamous Dan Gordon finally
went
> bankrupt, he & others were known for "buying stuff out from under people".
> Glad that guy ain't there no more.

ATM'ing is still part of RTMC.  You must not have stuck around for the merit
awards or attended any of the ATM talks.  What's wrong with trying to bring
more families to RTMC instead of having dads/husbands walking around by
themselves?  Would you ban vendors at RTMC?  No one forces you to buy
anything there.

> Not to mention the notorious deceptive advertising by many telescope mfrs
> (the most notable one, which starts with an M, which rhymes with
> "mediocre".)  Ask Roland Christen, about how they copied his APO
refractors.
>   Back in '94, they announced "field-flatteners" for their 4",5",6",7" APO
> refractors..which never materialized.  Talk about bait-and-switch.
>
> It all goes back to the 70's, when the industry was fairly well-behaved.
> Opticians were up front about optical specs, delivered ON TIME,
> sky&telescope was under the auspices of Harvard-Smithsonian Observatory
and
> had articles which were challenging to college-level readers.  Back in the
> 70's, something happened.  one optician got flaky...and they all began to
> have marginal business practices.  ("Hey, if that guy can get away with
> it..so can I!!)  Apparently, this ripoff-syndrome infected the entire
> industry: sky&telescope separated from Harvard, and became a more
> "Astronomy"-like popular magazine.  *choke*.  Their business practices
have
> always been unacceptable..predatory.  Ask Wil Milan or Jim Janusz (recent
> APML comments about non-payment for photos)..or any other experienced
> amateurs.
>
> So, we come back to the cheapening of astrophotos.  As long as 16x20
> spotlight prints are being sold for $25 by Sky Publishing (Tony Hallas
being
> a main supplier), you'll never get *exclusive* top dollar for your
> collectable astro-prints.  They no longer have any *exclusivity*, or
> uniqueness.  They are ALL done with basically the same techniques: same
> scope, same mount, same tracking, same scanning, same Photoshop, same
> Photoshop technique (Jerry Lodriguss' page gives it all away).  The photos
&
> techniques have been made available to the masses..anybody can pay $300
for
> a PC sh*tbox, get Photoshop LE (for free), throw $$ at the problem (buy
> off-the-shelf optics, mounts, SBIG auto-guiders),
follow-the-directions..and
> be a "world-class astrophotographer".  Just look at the APML archives: you
> have newbies ("wannabees", as Tony Hallas calls them), who have quickly
> found the short-path to (what was once) a very difficult/challenging
> activity.  I remember Martin Germano back in '85, commenting ("that made
me
> sick!") on how a newbie with a Comet Catcher, got a great astro-photo of
> Comet Iras-Iraki-Alcock the first time out.  Astrophotography now (& even
15
> yrs ago), has gone from a very specialized hobby (you had to
> understand/design/built your own mount, optics and hyper some bad
> reciprocity-failure film) to a buy-it-off-the-shelf Wal Mart activity...
you
> can "throw money at the problem & follow directions" (it's easy as 1-2-3).
> It's Wal Mart astrophotography..can be done really cheap (in terms of not
> exercising your individual creativity, understanding mechanical
engineering
> for mounts, understanding optical engineering for optics, understanding
> signal processing for image manipulation).  Plug-and-play astronomy..for
the
> masses.  Why Jerry Lodriguss & Tony Hallas are ruining the exclusive
nature
> of their profession, is beyond me...  Akira Fuji refuses to comment on his
> technique..guess why?  (why should he give away his secrets, and let a
> newbie duplicate his work?)

It really sucks, doesn't it?  Films for astrophotography are improving.
Commerical vendors sell quality mounts and optics.  Comupters are more
powerful and software more sophisticated.  Progress is so terrible.  So when
are you giving up your computer and TV?  They must not be worth keeping if
you didn't build them from scratch yourself.  Ah, for the good old days when
people had to etch their own chips from raw silicon.

> I think there should be a strong message sent to sky&telescope, about
> proportional/fair compensation for astrophotos.  The stuff about Gallery,
> being problematic if they started paying, is total nonsense.  (i've never
> heard such idiotic excuse-making)  Every other magazine pays.  (hint: S&T
> wants distribution rights for gallery pics: cds, yearly summary issues,
etc.
>   that's the REAL reason they don't pay for Gallery, where a contract has
to
> be signed for usage rights..they want to *distribute* amateur photos for
> nothing, for their own gain/profit.  Ask Jerry Lodriguss, about those
usage
> rights forms S&T sends out.  some of the stuff in there is nothing but a
> total ripoff.  Only an idiot would sign it.  Oh, wait. we're talking
amateur
> astronomers here...).

"Amateur", yes.

> I think the astrophoto marketplace needs a major "correction", as mike
> stecker made a push for a few yrs back.  Just like the stock-market,
> recently had a "major correction".  More value & respect paid to quality
> astrophotos.  No more of this "cheap bastard syndrome" mentality.

Quality astrophotos have an aesthetic value all their own, independent of
what their "market" value is.

> It's like last Nov's fouled up election, where politics (reared its ugly
> head) screwed up the vote-counting.  I like the CNN email by a viewer:
"What
> ever happened to common sense??"  The controlling powers-to-be (sky and
> telescope), are really "poisoning the well".  Exact comment, by some
> scientist-amateurs doing it since the 60's..who no longer subscribe to
S&T.
>
> Bottom-line: you want top-dollar for astrophotos?  Start behaving in an
> appropriate manner..don't patronize sky&telescope (as a group).

I could care less whether someone pays me for my astrophotos.  Why should
anyone else care?  Tony Hallas and Akira Fuji and Bill and Sally Fletcher
will still make a living.




--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>