[APML] Re: CCD on APML & other arguments

["D. Kodama" <kodama@alumni.caltech.edu>]

Egads!  78 messages in the digest, and I see the annual debate has come
up.  At the risk of prolonging things, I "vote" for leaving APML as-is for
these reasons:

  - Everyone seems to agree that APML is unique and successful.
    Perhaps that is because of its unique focus.  I'd hate to
    change the formula and then later have to join a "classic
    APML" list.  It's easy to start another list and experiment
    with a different format.  I'd prefer to do that and let
    APML die if it deserves to rather than potentially killing
    the current list by changing it.

  - If I really wanted everything pertaining to all types of
    imaging discussed in one place, I would just take all of
    the messages from the separate groups I subscribe to, put
    them all in one directory and stir liberally.  I prefer
    things topically sorted.

  - I don't buy into the broad brush categorization that all
    image processing is the same once it has been converted
    to bits.  There is considerable upstream processing of
    CCD images that depend on high SNR and linear data
    (not to mention fixing the CCD quirks like blooming) as
    well as software that is specifically suited for that
    and not film (often these programs are severely limited
    in accomodating large images).  The only commonality
    is in back-end processing, usually with Photoshop.
    Should there be a list on Photoshop processing of astro
    images?  Maybe that makes more sense.

  - For me, it's not about technical advantages or obsolescence
    or art, soul, my financial or technical capability, etc.
    I just *like* to work with film and I'm here to see what
    other film people are doing.  I'm on the CCD lists to see
    what the CCD people are doing too.  I just like them
    separated.

Dave




_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo