/"OK, this will undoubtedly tick some people off, but then willing ignorance and mental laziness ticks me off, too." /So opinions that differ from you**perfect** logic are willing ignorance and mental laziness? Little on the judgmental side maybe? / "That argument only comes from those who don't- or don't want to./" I don't think any of us imagers would have a hard time finding the Big Dipper. /"He preferred the "physical connnection" of visual observing." /How is imaging lacking physical connection? The photons hit the eye, and are converted to some "digital image" by the brain in some process we don't fully understand. They hit my camera, my computer does it, and I then absorb that image into my brain in the same way but with even more information. I think digital imaging enhances my physical connection. /"I can't see an interest in one aspect of astronomy meaning that others must be discarded./" Again, I think this was just a matter of preference. False dichotomy. /"You're an astro-imager, exclusively, not a astronomer or astronomy enthusiast." /Nothing to be ashamed of. Just because someone drew pictures in the sky doesn't mean I have to know them all to enjoy the sky the same way they do / did. - David - David On 9/6/2011 11:37 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
OK, this will undoubtedly tick some people off, but then willing ignorance and mental laziness ticks me off, too.
I never made the claim that there was only one way to enjoy astronomy. Nobody is. This isn't really a debate of GoTo vs. PushTo. But those who know the sky have an advantage that those who don't aren't really qualified to marginalize.
I keep hearing the argument that it's a waste of time, that it takes time from other astro activities.
This is a myth. It happens at different rates for different people. It's not a class with an exam at the end. Sometimes it takes a lifetime. There is no rush. There are certain strictly intellectual rewards, too. Like being able to visualize one's place in the the immediate galactic neighborhood, among others. The practical side is subjective, to be sure, and differs from person to person. Each person can take away something different from the knowledge of the sky.
I've never met ONE single person who, after learning their way around the sky, considered it a waste of time.
That argument only comes from those who don't- or don't want to.
There are lots of folks who know the sky and still manage to accomplish prodigious imaging. The argument that it's counter-productive to doing something else is vocalized to justify a strangely selective lack of interest. It takes a smaller effort than those espousing ignorance believe it takes. Are you an amateur astronomer, or just a tech junkie passing time playing with digital toys? Learning should never be so selective, especially with something so simple, once the mental adjustment to actually do it is made.
To play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, Brent Watson once made a statement to the effect that there are so many people taking fantastic images of the sky, that he considered it mere repetition and a waste of his time to throw away his eyepiece time imaging. He made a point worthy of consideration, in the context of this discussion.
He preferred the "physical connnection" of visual observing. What he saw through the eyepiece at any given time was a singular event, never to be exactly repeated, and his and his alone. He couldn't share his mental image and felt no need to, since everyone else was free to have the experience themselves. Imaging to him, in that light, was just a "me too" type of thing. Fun, but quickly repetitive and pointless.
"To each, his own" works both ways, using Brent's logic.
Personally, I like imaging, and while I understand Brent's position, I want to do a bit more of that "me too" stuff, myself. I used to shoot a lot of film and just don't have the financial resources to make the high-end digital conversion all at once or quickly. I fully intend to pursue more digital work as time and money allow, but my point is that I can't see an interest in one aspect of astronomy meaning that others must be discarded.
After all, there are many nights when the seeing just isn't good enough for imaging. You all know this. More bad or marginal nights than good, in fact. Why not spend that time with your naked eyes or binoculars? Plenty of time for it, and your eyes and binoculars won't notice the bad seeing that the camera would.
Now, if your attitude is "Im going to do imaging, or no astronomy at all", then we have come to the end of our discussion of what to do with one's astronomy time, haven't we? Bad seeing nights are filled with TV, or something else much more interesting than learning the sky, apparently. You're an astro-imager, exclusively, not a astronomer or astronomy enthusiast.
Understand that what I'm trying to do is open doors. Those refusing to learn a basic aspect of astronomy such as the constellations are operating under a misunderstanding, at least, and terribly cheating themselves, at most. I want young people, especially, to know that it's not an "either-or" situation. They CAN have it all.
Why outright dismiss learning something about the science, the hobby? Why not take it a little at a time? Just say "I'm working on it, as time permits". Why throw the very idea out, wholesale? Makes no sense at all.
My 2 cents. Ok, a buck and a half, lol.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php