I Think rdc could not have said it better. Thank you Richard.
Mark McConnell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Crisp" <rdcrisp@No-Spam>
To: <sf-bay-tac@No-Spam>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 9:03 AM
Subject: TAC general BA astro or an eyeball only report only forum? (was Re:
[TAC] Is it just me...)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark G. Wagner" <resource@No-Spam>
> > There are LOTS of talented imagers "in" TAC, and when image postings and
> > comments about images became a significant and ongoing part of the list,
a
> > new list was initiated (still there.... TAC-Imaging) to cater
specifically
> > to imagers... just imagine for sake of argument, an observational
observer
> > going on TAC imaging and starting a thread about some aspect of obeving
> > that had nothing whatsoever to do with imaging, and then all sorts of
> > other people joining in, talking about topics that are off-topic for the
> > list. People would bail
>
> I guess that is what happened to TAC-imaging, because there are very few
> posts there about much of anything, which is the main reason I find
> TAC-imaging a non-starter (sorry Paul, it just doesn't seem to have
critical
> mass or traction).
>
> What I saw in the last batch of posts to TAC-imaging was a saga about the
> weather and how it was frustrating a new camera owner. Other than the
> comment about the camera, that could be considered off-topic for the
imaging
> group and the comment about the weather could have just as easily been
> posted to TAC where it could have been welcomed.
>
> To me the TAC mailing list seems as much of a list of astronomers that are
> largely bay-area centric and share a common interest in astronomy as it
is
> a list of observing reports. When I have read the posts over the past few
> months that's what I've seen. As long as things have not gone too far out
> into the weeds, it seems that the list remained mostly on-topic where that
> topic is defined loosely as pertaining to astronomy.
>
> People on TAC can bash imagers and their posting of images, but when we
each
> receive our copy of S&T each month, how many can actually say that they
> DON'T look at the images (pictures)? I'll bet about ZERO. And how many can
> say that when you are seeking out an object to observe through an
eyepiece,
> that you have not looked at an image of it ahead of time to know what the
> beast looks like so you will know you are on-target? My point in this is
> that images are what got many of us interested in the hobby to begin with,
> are what we are seeking (be it via emulsion, potential wells or eyeball)
and
> it's that we use to refer when we seek a new object. They are not evil.
>
> Like any non-stagnant hobby, the sport changes, and new blood is what
keeps
> it vigorous and drives the growth. The old-hands may not like the change
but
> the nature of the world is continuous change.
>
> For what it's worth, I visually look at everything that I have imaged, I
> just take a picture of it while I'm there. So even though I may post a
link
> to an image of something I recently logged, it is an observing report
> nonetheless. And remembering that a picture is worth a thousand words, I
> would argue that the observing report is fantastically detailed, and done
so
> in a very concise and compact way that reduces net-traffic.
>
> And for whatever it is worth to the rest of you, I truly look forward to
> reading TAC posts of all kinds: I read them upon rising to begin my day
and
> I read them before retiring to end the day. I also read them several times
> during the day. They are a source of inspiration, a means of communication
> and a great place to make new friends.
>
> Have fun wherever you wind up, Mark. I hope to see you around.
>
> rdc
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 12:10:49 MST