Re: [APML] Stunned silence; was: Goodbye

["bert katzung" <katzung1@home.com>]

Hi Paul:
You don't need to leave---what you are hearing is only the residue of an
argument from a year or two ago. There doesn't seem to be nearly the insular
film-only feeling that we had before. Some long-time film users (and very
expert ones at that) seemed to feel that since there were CCD groups in
which film wasn't mentioned (the SBIG group, I guess), there should damn
well be a film group in which CCD wasn't mentioned. The people who got
flamed then for "defending" CCD on APML are very cautious now. On the other
hand, people who did the flaming then have not made any recent objections
(as far as I know) to the rather significant comparisons of CCD and film
techniques and images on APML.

For which I am very grateful, because this is an extremely useful group---as
are the CCD groups. I don't have any plans to abandon film, but I'm not
going to drop my plans to acquire a CCD camera when I can afford one. It
would be nice to have a site where both could be discussed.

Bert

Bert Katzung
"When it was first said that the sun stood still
and the world turned round, the common sense
of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the
old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher
knows, cannot be trusted in science." CHARLES DARWIN
www.astronomy-images.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Howell" <paul@howell-ltd.com>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Sunday, 04 November, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] (It doesn't have to be) Goodbye


> Stunned silence. If we were talking that would be my reaction after
reading
> some of the recent posts about folks leaving this list because they were
> "converting" (is film a religion?) to CCD.
>
> I am a professional commercial photographer. My business is to produce
> compelling images. I am also an avid amateur astronomer. Almost two years
> ago I started imaging for the first time. I chose to start with a CCD
> camera. It seemed that was the way to go but never mind that. It is true
> that I am interested in science, but that isn't what I am trying to do
with
> my camera (if it is in fact a camera after all). I'm trying to make great
> photographs. I don't know if I've gotten there yet, but I'm trying. I
select
> objects and choose techniques and focal lengths based solely on whether I
> think the combination will make a good, strong image.
>
> I've learned a lot along the way about technique and I was thinking I
might
> join the dialog on this list - an astrophotography list.  Never did I
> imagine that astrophotography with a CCD is somehow not astrophotography.
> Blissfully unaware have I been that my painstaking work to romance the
> contrast of the quarter tones just *so* was not in fact, an aesthetic
> pursuit.
>
> I am new to this list (and evidently not long for it either), but there
> seems to be some outright vitriol towards CCD's. Why in God's name? At
first
> I thought it was a joke. Then I thought it was funny. I would laugh to
> myself "huh - he's getting mad at a piece of *silicon*". Now I don't know
> what to think. Can anyone possibly explain why a piece of silicon could
make
> someone mad?
>
> When I talk about composition, local and global contrast, detail,
filtering,
> skyglow, light pollution and other such things related to astrophotography
> are there really two categories - yours and mine? Wow.
>
> Gee, sorry I couldn't stay longer, you folks seem like an interesting lot
> but I gotta go.
>
> -Paul
>
>
>
> --  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>