Re: [APML] Mission Statement Change?

["Bobby Middleton" <bobm@koyote.com>]

Very valid points worthy of much consideration.
Bobby Middleton

From: 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>


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