(Viewed 998 times)

[katodog]

Here is todays million dollar question...

Why do the astro magazines, ie. Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, etc. always post everyone else's pictures and not mine, when mine are just as good or better than the ones they put in their mags?

I constantly see pictures that wouldn't hold a mini maglite to mine, and I sent in the same things. I never knock anyone's pictures, but it is curious..

But, I guess if you don't have the ten thousand dollar Meade and the five thousand dollar SBIG camera, it doesn't count

[Rocketman]

Yeah, I like your pictures, I'd be pissed off too.

[katodog]

Thanks, Rocketman, it's nice to be appreciated. At least here, everyone has some sense and reallizes it's not who has the best toys, but who uses what they have to the best they can.

I would expect the magazines to put submissions in from the amateurs who got the best pictures with the cheapest equipment. I prefer to see my pictures that blow away alot of others, with the cheap equipment I have, then to see the same stuff day after day of the guys with the 10" scopes with the gps and the most expensive camera. I really don't see the point of letting the equipment do all the work, and getting credit for it. It really starts to defeat the purpose of doing it in the first place.

Plus the fact that my shots are all single shots, no computer mumbo jumbo, no stacking, maybe a little cropping or resizing, but that's it. I don't see what the thrill is in setting and forgetting. It's such hard work to set up the scope, I guess they're too tired to sit and snap off shots. I'm sure it's alot easier to let something else do the work for them.

And, no, I'm not jealous of the other guys. I just think it's about time the little guys got some attention. It's ridiculous to keep catering to people who don't do anything but push a few buttons.

Viva la Registax!!! Viva la Meade DSI!!! Long live lazy people!!!

[katodog]

Boy, what a crybaby I am!!! I think that's all I have to say about that.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Kdog,

I think sites like the Chicago Astronomer and others serve the need to showcase astrophotos and activies that we participate in, as the chances in getting in the mainstream mags are tough.

I don't know if I agree that they just select the fancy ones with great equipment and processes. I have seen simple point-and-shoot pics printed, but keep on submitting them I say.

One's got to hit!...

[katodog]

Come on, Joe, you've got to be kidding. I subscribe to Astronomy and every issue is the same. Nebular this or galaxy that. Always with some jackass observatory or millionaire toy. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same bull every issue. It's either a magnificent shot of another boring deep space object or a crappy shot that looks like the ding dong doesn't know camera from Gamera. You've seen some of my pics, and not even the best ones. Use your own judgement.

I think I pissed off Astronomy. I sent them an email that pretty much says what I've said here, and so far the only response I got was the usual "we got your email
and will respond soon" garbage

Plus, like I said before. They should show more amatuer shots that guys made with cheap equipment so beginners can see what kind of stuff they can see and do.

Here's a good example:





I think these are absolutely beautiful. Now go to Astronomy's website and look at todays pics of the day. There is one in there of the moon and an airplane. Nice fuzzy shot of the moon. Excellent material to put in the mag. Great decision.

I need to stop now. That vein is popping again on my head.

PS. I love this site

[Rocketman]

>Thanks, Rocketman, it's nice to be appreciated.


Yes, when it happens

[katodog]

Don't get discouraged about the lack of satellite enthusiasm on this site. Although I don't read the satellite sightings, I do enjoy your satellite pictures. So keep them coming. Maybe some day you'll get one of my house. I'll be sure to wave