Re: [APML] Mission Statement Change?

[Dean Jacobsen <deanjacobsen@earthlink.net>]

Thank you Philip for expressing my concerns in a somewhat more eloquent 
manner. <g>

Dean Jacobsen
www.astrophoto.net

At 03:10 PM 1/19/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>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>