Re: [APML] Mission Statement Change?

[Philip Perkins <philip@astrocruise.com>]

Chuck, Gene, et al,

I do not believe that tinkering with the rules is either necessary or will 
have any effect.  There are always those who break the rules, whatever the 
rules, and there is no evidence that this will stop if the rules are 
changed.  Changing rules so as to accommodate those who break the rules has 
never been a valid reason for change.

So let's assume that a change is necessary to "move with the 
times".  Technology is continually evolving and over a period of time many 
technologies do indeed become obsolete.  But is this really true of 
film?  Is it really true that film is dead, or so very nearly dead, that 
APML must "get with it" and start changing over to a CCD discussion 
group?  On the contrary there is no sense in which film is dead - film is a 
very different medium from CCD and the two technologies yield very 
different results - the reasons for using one as opposed to the other are 
as compelling as they have been in the past.  I appreciate that there are 
many who do not truly understand the reasons for using film, but I take 
objection to those people dictating the outcome of something that is 
critically important to those who _do_ understand the reasons for using film.

APML was established as a focused discussion group for film 
astrophotography and the reasons for it's existence are as valid today as 
when it was established. I believe that the people who joined the list for 
the good and proper reasons of that mission should have some sort of 
priority.  I don't think it's fair that they should be 'elbowed out' by the 
people who want to change that mission.  I believe that we have a silent 
majority here who would not want this.

Moreover, while CCD imaging lists seem to be proliferating everywhere, APML 
is the *only* list that focuses on film astrophotography.  While the 
proposed change may appear to be quite subtle, I feel strongly that it will 
be the thin end of a very large wedge.  The growth in CCD imaging has been 
explosive and the pressures are immense.  I feel strongly that in a short 
time APML would be all but obliterated as a forum for astrophotography. We 
have seen the thin end of this already with the very large number of posts 
that do nothing at all to contribute towards film astrophotography. Is this 
really fair to the majority of subscribers who joined because they wanted a 
focused discussion group on film astrophotography?

There are many CCD lists which we can join (and many of us have joined) 
where we can learn properly about CCD imaging and share information with 
others who have knowledge and enthusiasm for CCD imaging.

The existing mission encapsulates the focus of APML.  Why is focus so 
important?  Focus is the oxygen of mail lists such as APML - without focus, 
such mail lists disintegrate into nothing more than "chat rooms".  Focus is 
the _only_ thing that differentiates mail lists from "chat rooms".  All 
successful mail lists have a very specific focus.  Any attempt to erode 
that focus should be treated with great caution, because it has a strong 
probability of eroding the mail list itself.  Loss of focus _always_ causes 
an increase in noise, and increase in noise _always_ lowers the quality, 
and loss of quality _always_ results in the absconding of experienced 
membership.  We have seen this happen several times - it is the main reason 
why AstroV mail list was established, as just one example.

Having said that, APML has always been very tolerant.  The relaxed attitude 
to off-topic posts, while maintaining its underlying focus, is quite 
probably one of the reasons why APML has flourished.  CCD related posts, 
and CCD / film comparison images have always been tolerated, if not 
welcomed in many cases.  And I don't think there has been any suggestion 
that such posts should be 'prohibited' now, has there?  With many such 
posts there has not even been a hint of an "OT" in the message, yet still 
there has been tolerance.  But it would be nice if when making such posts 
we could be at least a little conscious of the rules and the wishes of the 
majority membership, for reasons of courtesy, if nothing else.

What about the view that: "Film and CCD imaging are just different forms of 
astro imaging - only the medium changes"?  If this is meant to imply that 
the skills and experience learned with one medium are directly applicable 
to the other (and therefore by implication that there is no need for APML's 
focus on film) then I'd like to answer to that.  The truth is that the 
skills and experience required are _profoundly_ different.  Apart from 
skills to do with the telescope and mount (which are not directly relevant 
to image acquisition and processing skills anyway) there is not a single 
respect in which the image acquisition and processing skills of one medium 
are similar or transferrable to the other...  except for the final 
'polishing' stages in Photoshop.  But those final stages are so broad based 
that in many cases they apply equally to regular 'daylight' images.  Apart 
from these very final stages, the _entire_ image acquisition and processing 
sequence with CCD images is totally different than with film.  It is a 
steep learning curve with CCD, which involves totally new and complex 
concepts, and several totally new and complex software packages.  I am 
still grappling with several of these things today, more than a year 
downstream.  The above implication is simply untrue and is likely to 
seriously mislead anyone who has no prior CCD knowledge.

Film astrophotography has its own completely unique set of challenges, that 
in the advanced stages, are every bit as formidable as the skills required 
for CCD imaging.  It needs its own focused discussion group.

As I said at the beginning, I don't think that tinkering with the rules 
will have any effect at all except for one thing - it will have the effect 
of "loosening" the focus, and this in turn seems very likely to start a 
process of attrition that gradually degrades the quality of APML as a 
discussion group both for the core membership and for those wishing to 
discuss CCD imaging.  The image acquisition and processing techniques of 
these two technologies is fundamentally different and neither of them can 
be learned properly in a "mish mash" forum.  I know that this is not 
suggested by the proposed change but I feel strongly that such a change 
will be the spur to a sequence of events that causes it to happen...  "we 
already had one change but it wasn't quite enough, so here's another...."

In fact no change is necessary at all if we are being properly respectful 
and courteous to the good people who joined APML for the purpose for which 
it is intended.

It seems that another focused mail list is called for.  We have already had 
this discussion in the past and the answer is the same as it was then.

--Philip
Philip Perkins - philip@astrocruise.com
Wiltshire UK & Luberon France
Astrocruise - http://www.astrocruise.com


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