What I'm about to say is going to be very controversial and I believe almost all of you will disagree and criticize my opinion but I feel like this needs to be said. I believe these remote observatory services that offer pier rentals are a fantastic but there's a dark side to this business that I can see growing out of control. What happens when companies start buying all the dark sites? Will I be allowed to go to a dark site with my own gear and not pay anything? Will there be any space left for people like me that are willing to drive to a dark site? What's stopping larger companies like Celestron from buying up amateur remote observatories then charging more to use their piers? Those of us that don't want to pay to use a dark site will eventually be left behind unless we are lucky and have good skies from out yards or nearby sites. In my opinion, I think it is ridiculous to have to pay to be at a dark site. It's Earth. No one should have to pay to stand on the ground and look at a clear dark sky. I understand remote observatories have operational costs and their fees go to maintaining operation. I get that. I'm just curious to see where this goes once the demand for it grows and probably will spiral out of control to the point where they will need to charge more to maintain operations. I don't like being pessimistic but the "pay to play" model that astrophotography has become bothers me. What made the hobby so majestic was the art. The process of packing up all your gear, driving to a dark site, setting it all up, making sure it's perfect capturing the subs, processing it and then creating a beautiful picture. That's the art. That's the hobby. Now it's just a business pay to play pay to win. Here's the picture. No story behind it. No struggle. Just point and click. It is indeed cheating and continuing to cheat will ruin the game. Just my thoughts and I respect and understand why people would want to use remote observatory services, but remember you relinquish some of the art and no longer have the right to call this a hobby nor art because you did not set anything up. People who have built their own observatories are in a different situation. They felt the pain of building observatory and setting up their equipment and using the observatory without a middleman. It's like buying a race car, having it shipped elsewhere, then paying someone else to drive it who wins a competition or whatever and then you say "I won, I did that". I'm sure I'm gonna get chewed up by the remote rental police but it's fine. I guess also that maybe amateur astrophotography dwindling and you can only be a professional if you have a remote observatory? Idk now I'm rambling. Whatevs.
CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC : Pay to play - remote observatory rental
Engaging
I mean, I don’t think it should be a controversial topic at all. It’s your money, spend it how you want. I use my backyard but also live next to an airport in bortle 6/7 skies.
would I like to have a rig somewhere with really dark skies most of the time? Sure. But I also really enjoy the hands on equipment experience. The tinkering, modding, etc. I like to be able to pick which scope I’m going to shoot with. The Epsilon? The refractor? The SCT? I don’t want to rent out 3 spots… although, having two scopes on a single side by side would be cool… but again, I could do that here at home.
wouldn’t mind not having to deal with polar aligning, though (since all my rigs are on tripods and I bring them outside when I want to shoot).
and also the ability to say “I took this from my backyard” is a nice bonus because the response is always, “No shit??”
all of that said, I haven’t had a good clear night in over 6 weeks…at least not when I wasn’t already exhausted from a full day at the office.
would I like to have a rig somewhere with really dark skies most of the time? Sure. But I also really enjoy the hands on equipment experience. The tinkering, modding, etc. I like to be able to pick which scope I’m going to shoot with. The Epsilon? The refractor? The SCT? I don’t want to rent out 3 spots… although, having two scopes on a single side by side would be cool… but again, I could do that here at home.
wouldn’t mind not having to deal with polar aligning, though (since all my rigs are on tripods and I bring them outside when I want to shoot).
and also the ability to say “I took this from my backyard” is a nice bonus because the response is always, “No shit??”
all of that said, I haven’t had a good clear night in over 6 weeks…at least not when I wasn’t already exhausted from a full day at the office.
Now it's just a business pay to play pay to win. Here's the picture. No story behind it. No struggle. Just point and click. It is indeed cheating and continuing to cheat will ruin the game. Just my thoughts and I respect and understand why people would want to use remote observatory services, but remember you relinquish some of the art and no longer have the right to call this a hobby nor art because you did not set anything up.
I guess it is supply and demand? Nothing stops you from doing what you are doing today -taking images from your backyard or a local dark sky site. I mean, it isn't as if these companies are buying every conceivable dark sky site out there. You are free to associate with a set of followers who take the kind of images you do and ignore the rest. Why would you see it as being "left behind"? It isn't as if all of these people are making millions of dollars off of this - quite to the contrary, they are spending the money to get some satisfaction. I see it as no different than buying an expensive car or a boat or a second house.
Hmm.. Something tells me that Celestron (and/or any current or future dark site owner/operators) can't afford to buy all of this dark space! I think that you're a bit worried about nothing!
You seem to be under the impression that "dark sites" are so few, and amateur astrophotographers interested in remote observatories are so many that soon we will reach a point where an amateur won't be able to find/use a dark site not already exploited by a remote observatory…
I don't have numbers to back that up, but I have the feeling you are comparing a couple of drops of water (remote observatories) to the ocean (dark sites). I suppose that may change in the future, but I'll let posterity to worry about that…
I don't have numbers to back that up, but I have the feeling you are comparing a couple of drops of water (remote observatories) to the ocean (dark sites). I suppose that may change in the future, but I'll let posterity to worry about that…
While I envy those who choose to afford to rent a dark site pier and have so many clear nights, it's just not my thing. I enjoy the satisfaction of imaging in my backyard. I just roll the whole rig from my garage and it takes only 10-15 minutes to set it up.
If the dark sites you go to are public land, I'd be more worried that those will be sold to mining or drilling given the recent administration's proclivities.
There's only so many people who would choose to afford to get the more robust equipment and pay the monthly rent/maintenance fees for this already expensive hobby. I'm not the least bit afraid of it becoming a large-scale commercial operation…the numbers just won't support it.
If the dark sites you go to are public land, I'd be more worried that those will be sold to mining or drilling given the recent administration's proclivities.
There's only so many people who would choose to afford to get the more robust equipment and pay the monthly rent/maintenance fees for this already expensive hobby. I'm not the least bit afraid of it becoming a large-scale commercial operation…the numbers just won't support it.
Well Written Engaging
I understand the concern. And personally, I'd also rather set up and use my own gear over a remote observatory.
But I also don't see this spiraling out of control either.
Astrophotography is an expensive hobby. That alone limits how many get into it. Remote observatories add another level of significant costs.
On top of that, astrophotography is still a niche hobby. Many people like the images, but have no interest in taking it up themselves (effort, difficulty, cost, etc).
Factor in the vast number of dark sky sites, I don't see this ever being a significant issue.
I'm way more concerned about non-astronomy-related development & expansion that continually brightens our night sky.
But I also don't see this spiraling out of control either.
Astrophotography is an expensive hobby. That alone limits how many get into it. Remote observatories add another level of significant costs.
On top of that, astrophotography is still a niche hobby. Many people like the images, but have no interest in taking it up themselves (effort, difficulty, cost, etc).
Factor in the vast number of dark sky sites, I don't see this ever being a significant issue.
I'm way more concerned about non-astronomy-related development & expansion that continually brightens our night sky.
Well Written Insightful Respectful Concise
I subscribe to a 14" telescope in Texas, I live in the NE of England. It's always cloudy here or when it isn't it's very windy and with all the lighting the sky is permanently orange. I can't image anymore and I find remote imaging works very well for me.
It isn't every ones preferred solution but there are definite advantages ie the ability to image objects further south than where you live or even the whole southern sky, Now that.. also for me is worth a reasonable price.
I don't regard it as cheating to image in this way at all. I get to help choose targets with the other team members, I get the use of a very expensive telescope, camera and filters that i could never afford myself. I get to process the image as either pre made Masters or i get the individual subs and calibration files and do it all myself.
If that's cheating then I'm doubly guilty as i also use AutoIntegrate which is a brilliant script that allows me to throw everything in, whether that be masters or all the flats bias darks and lights, Set all the parameters i want to use that Pixinsight has to offer, Press run and it does it all for me, I then use other scripts to fine tune and enhance the image to my liking.
At the end of the day we all take from this amazing hobby/passion what we can in as many different ways we can.
It isn't every ones preferred solution but there are definite advantages ie the ability to image objects further south than where you live or even the whole southern sky, Now that.. also for me is worth a reasonable price.
I don't regard it as cheating to image in this way at all. I get to help choose targets with the other team members, I get the use of a very expensive telescope, camera and filters that i could never afford myself. I get to process the image as either pre made Masters or i get the individual subs and calibration files and do it all myself.
If that's cheating then I'm doubly guilty as i also use AutoIntegrate which is a brilliant script that allows me to throw everything in, whether that be masters or all the flats bias darks and lights, Set all the parameters i want to use that Pixinsight has to offer, Press run and it does it all for me, I then use other scripts to fine tune and enhance the image to my liking.
At the end of the day we all take from this amazing hobby/passion what we can in as many different ways we can.
Helpful Engaging Supportive
Peter:
At the end of the day we all take from this amazing hobby/passion what we can in as many different ways we can.
100%. We all do what we can to be able to pursue what we want out of this hobby, which is as varied as the stars above. You can draw lines and boxes around everything we do and label it what you want. People can or choose to afford nice setups and remote imaging, all the more power to them! The hobby has advanced because of them even for those with basic setups.
Well this hobby can be expensive but once you have all your gear you really don't have to pay to use it.
Companies can't afford to buy all the practical and accessible dark spaces yet. Accessible meaning by most people with a car.
Any industry that becomes large and lucrative pique the interest of investors and we know what happens when big money investors become interested in something especially real estate. Microsoft Farms is a good example of that. Even in NY we need to buy a permit to be at a designated area on Park (public) property at night just to stargaze. It's concerning to me that dark skies are slowly becoming either scarce, pay-walled, or both.
Companies can't afford to buy all the practical and accessible dark spaces yet. Accessible meaning by most people with a car.
Any industry that becomes large and lucrative pique the interest of investors and we know what happens when big money investors become interested in something especially real estate. Microsoft Farms is a good example of that. Even in NY we need to buy a permit to be at a designated area on Park (public) property at night just to stargaze. It's concerning to me that dark skies are slowly becoming either scarce, pay-walled, or both.
Even in NY we need to buy a permit to be at a designated area on Park (public) property at night just to stargaze.
Not very different than buying an entrance ticket to a state or national park. That's public land too. But it costs money to maintain and our taxes are clearly insufficient for that.
I'm not sure that your concern about loosing access to dark skies is really warranted and it assumes that everyone works that way. There are a lot of people like myself who image from the backyard and learn to work with it's advantages and disadvantages. Now, remote hosting is not my thing, it would suck a lot of the joy out of the hobby for me, I would feel more like an image processor than an astrophotographer. That said, I wouldn't take anything way from the people who do. It's not easy to build a rig that can be so reliable that it will operate almost flawlessly from a site thousands of miles away. Also, when you go remote you're not just buying the use of a pier and building, you're paying for on-site support to step in when things go wrong that can't be corrected remotely. I wouldn't consider any remote host that doesn't offer that and I believe most of not all do. At the end of the day it just depends on what you hold important and what floats your boat. If the greater public paid more attention to outdoor lighting, all of this would be less of an issue but that's never gonna happen so options are good and needed.
Helpful Respectful Engaging
I think the worry is caused by this false premise: " What happens when companies start buying all the dark sites? "
There is literally too much land for that to happen. Even if you collect all the astrophotographers in a single observatory, you probably do not use even 0.1% of the dark sky area.
But if this is a rather governing concern, there are societies that are trying to protect the dark skies. We have one here in Keweenaw for example and locals support their cause. They own their land in those dark skies and you can join them to support the cause.
There is literally too much land for that to happen. Even if you collect all the astrophotographers in a single observatory, you probably do not use even 0.1% of the dark sky area.
But if this is a rather governing concern, there are societies that are trying to protect the dark skies. We have one here in Keweenaw for example and locals support their cause. They own their land in those dark skies and you can join them to support the cause.
Helpful Insightful Respectful
As a new astrophotographer, I would say the only thing controversial in this thread is the OP gatekeeping the hobby. I'm sure OP's used new technology over the years, maybe even an autofocuser. Is that "pay to win"? How much have you spent on software to process your images? Where does it stop?
As others have said, it's optional, Celestron isn't buying out the globe, and you are free to keep scrolling past those pics from remote observatories without saying a word. I have processed data from some of these remote observatories but, you know, it's a hobby and it was fun (I even paid for some data!). It's nothing like putting up my own data for those yummy upvotes though.
As others have said, it's optional, Celestron isn't buying out the globe, and you are free to keep scrolling past those pics from remote observatories without saying a word. I have processed data from some of these remote observatories but, you know, it's a hobby and it was fun (I even paid for some data!). It's nothing like putting up my own data for those yummy upvotes though.
Well Written Insightful Concise Engaging
I wonder if this kind of discussion happened when music streaming started. Going from owning a library of physical media turned to just click and listen. Both sides still get to enjoy their music just a different means of doing so. If I could afford to send my rig out to Texas I totally would but I have an 8" SCT and a hyperstar which increases the cost plus insurance. But I could find someone with a rig I'm interested in and purchase subs from their remote rig. That's also an option and probably cheaper than renting a pier.
Now it's just a business pay to play pay to win.
If your point of view is that astrophotography is game that needs to be won, you may have lost focus on the art of it...
It is indeed cheating and continuing to cheat will ruin the game.
Similar to previous quote, but here's my point of view on what actually can ruin this hobby (which is NOT a game, not in my view at least)...it isn't what the person next to me is doing with their equipment, it isn't what the person halfway around the world is doing with their equipment...instead, it's three things (in my opinion) that can ruin this hobby for me:
(1) Clouds
(2) Light Pollution
(3) The person next to me (or halfway around the world) telling me what to do with my equipment.
For perspective, I live in an apartment 15 miles from NYC and I am a teacher, coach, and tutor. I'm at school at 7:30am and wrap my days up at 8:30pm. I cannot drop everything to drive 2h one way to a dark sky site, setup, image, tear down, drive 2h back, and still be a functional human being during the day. I tried. And it burned me out in less than a year. I still go to the dark site on weekends when I have the time, but that's really only an option in the summer. That's 9 months in the rest of the year where my gear would hardly be used. Simply put, astrophotography, something I love and enjoy, is very nearly impossible for me to do while still making a living. Remote observatories, combined with my dark sky site and star parties in the summer, give me the best of both worlds. I can collect data and make art during the school year, and I can sit under the stars with friends and fellow astronomers in the summer. I have plenty of friends who wouldn't dream of taking the path I've chosen in this hobby, but they aren't viewing themselves as "losers of a game" simply because I chose to walk this path.
What made the hobby so majestic was the art.
I hope that you're able to reset your focus back to the art of it, friend.
Helpful Insightful Engaging
As a new astrophotographer, I would say the only thing controversial in this thread is the OP gatekeeping the hobby.
Which hobby? Astrophotography or image processing? I wouldn't consider those two things a single hobby. I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't use remote observatory services. All I did was express my opinion and concern. Maybe I mis-used the word "controversial".
As a someone who made a living for a while playing live music, the evolution to just "click and play", disposable music has devalued it for young people and has reduced the quality of popular music in general. There's nothing special about it anymore, it's more like a jar of peanut butter then an art form. I'd hate to see amateur astronomy go the same way.
What I'm about to say is going to be very controversial and I believe almost all of you will disagree and criticize my opinion but I feel like this needs to be said. I believe these remote observatory services that offer pier rentals are a fantastic but there's a dark side to this business that I can see growing out of control. What happens when companies start buying all the dark sites? Will I be allowed to go to a dark site with my own gear and not pay anything? Will there be any space left for people like me that are willing to drive to a dark site? What's stopping larger companies like Celestron from buying up amateur remote observatories then charging more to use their piers? Those of us that don't want to pay to use a dark site will eventually be left behind unless we are lucky and have good skies from out yards or nearby sites. In my opinion, I think it is ridiculous to have to pay to be at a dark site. It's Earth. No one should have to pay to stand on the ground and look at a clear dark sky. I understand remote observatories have operational costs and their fees go to maintaining operation. I get that. I'm just curious to see where this goes once the demand for it grows and probably will spiral out of control to the point where they will need to charge more to maintain operations. I don't like being pessimistic but the "pay to play" model that astrophotography has become bothers me. What made the hobby so majestic was the art. The process of packing up all your gear, driving to a dark site, setting it all up, making sure it's perfect capturing the subs, processing it and then creating a beautiful picture. That's the art. That's the hobby. Now it's just a business pay to play pay to win. Here's the picture. No story behind it. No struggle. Just point and click. It is indeed cheating and continuing to cheat will ruin the game. Just my thoughts and I respect and understand why people would want to use remote observatory services, but remember you relinquish some of the art and no longer have the right to call this a hobby nor art because you did not set anything up. People who have built their own observatories are in a different situation. They felt the pain of building observatory and setting up their equipment and using the observatory without a middleman. It's like buying a race car, having it shipped elsewhere, then paying someone else to drive it who wins a competition or whatever and then you say "I won, I did that". I'm sure I'm gonna get chewed up by the remote rental police but it's fine. I guess also that maybe amateur astrophotography dwindling and you can only be a professional if you have a remote observatory? Idk now I'm rambling. Whatevs.
Good luck "buying" all the dark sites to make a few bucks on a relatively minor hobby. If I'm buying dark site land I'm farming it. Don't get caught up in fear of something that doesn't exist.
This isn't a video game and there's no winning. You do what you do and enjoy it and if you can't enjoy it because people are doing things that you aren't doing, then thats a you problem. I spent years going to different sites until I built my own observatory and even 3 years of that there wasnt enough clear sky or it was too cold to image. I'd rather pay $300 a month to have my scope in texas than deal with -40c weather that kills my computers and mounts. So you complain and I'll keep imaging from my remote spot. It's not for you to say what I do.
Consider that some of us, like myself, cannot image from home. I live near the California coast, notorious for fog and wind. And my backyard has quite a bit of sky obstruction. I can't tell you how many late afternoons I'd set up my gear, all eager to image and as soon as the sunset the fog rolled in and I'd have to take everything apart.
Also consider a person's age. When I was in my 40s, packing up a scope and driving out of the city was an easy and fun thing to do. I'm now in my mid-70s and packing up all the gear that's needed to do astrophotography isn't so easy anymore. As we age standing outside in the cold or getting bit to pieces by mosquitoes becomes less tolerable, at least this is true for me. If it were not for pier rentals at dark sky sites, I'd probably be unable or unwilling to do astrophotography.
Running a pier-rental service requires a large investment. Finding a place where the conditions are right: humidity, elevation, temperature, seeing, cloud cover,–all this has to be taken into account. Infrastructure, getting permits, wiring for electrical service, internet service, maintenance–all that costs a lot of time and money. The government isn't going to provide that for us.
I'm lucky I can spend my remaining few years doing something I enjoy, something challenging, uncertain and enjoyable. If I could set up an observatory in my backyard under Bortle 1, 2 or even 3 skies, I'd do that. But that's not possible.
Light pollution, worldwide, is growing about about 10% a year. Unless governments start to value having night sky darkness (some municipal governments do) the earth is going to continue to get brighter, more populated, with more satellites and airplanes overhead. I'd worry about that more than pier-rental observatories taking over the world. Most people do not want to do astrophotography. And even among amateur astronomers, many are content with visual astronomy.
Also consider a person's age. When I was in my 40s, packing up a scope and driving out of the city was an easy and fun thing to do. I'm now in my mid-70s and packing up all the gear that's needed to do astrophotography isn't so easy anymore. As we age standing outside in the cold or getting bit to pieces by mosquitoes becomes less tolerable, at least this is true for me. If it were not for pier rentals at dark sky sites, I'd probably be unable or unwilling to do astrophotography.
Running a pier-rental service requires a large investment. Finding a place where the conditions are right: humidity, elevation, temperature, seeing, cloud cover,–all this has to be taken into account. Infrastructure, getting permits, wiring for electrical service, internet service, maintenance–all that costs a lot of time and money. The government isn't going to provide that for us.
I'm lucky I can spend my remaining few years doing something I enjoy, something challenging, uncertain and enjoyable. If I could set up an observatory in my backyard under Bortle 1, 2 or even 3 skies, I'd do that. But that's not possible.
Light pollution, worldwide, is growing about about 10% a year. Unless governments start to value having night sky darkness (some municipal governments do) the earth is going to continue to get brighter, more populated, with more satellites and airplanes overhead. I'd worry about that more than pier-rental observatories taking over the world. Most people do not want to do astrophotography. And even among amateur astronomers, many are content with visual astronomy.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
In a somewhat anticipative fashion, one could consider that our current light pollution concerns will remain as a spark in the grand scheme of humanity's story. We rely today on a very wasteful process to light our settlements and endeavours : basically flood the surfaces with uncollimated light. One could envision a future where every human wears (or is implanted by) some kind of device allowing a far more accurate and efficient use of light in the dark, at the neuronal level. Technology is adopted, fast, and like that, these few centuries of light pollution are just gone : remove or turn off said-device, and you're back to the darkest nights, everywhere.
For now, we'll have a 404 error consulting our contributor's profile.
For now, we'll have a 404 error consulting our contributor's profile.
For now, we'll have a 404 error consulting our contributor's profile.
Ha! The contributor did say it was controversial, a bit surprised they removed themselves from the conversation...
I'm a photographer. I set up all my gear myself. I plan my nights. Buying images just ain't the same as doing actual astrophotography. I see the ipod guys think bought images are nice. I just don't agree the credit should go to a processor.
Monty Chandler:
I just don't agree the credit should go to a processor.
I can relate to this, to a degree, but I lean more towards the processing of the data is where photographers differentiate themselves. The majority of the "active" time invested in creating an image comes from processing the data, after all. Takes only about 20 minutes to get a scope set up on a night, but many hours to process (depending on skill level and dedication to the craft).
I tend to view the rig setup/calibration as choosing the canvas and easel, paints and brushes, and getting them ready...but the processing of data is the mixing of paints, using the proper brush, and creating the image. For me, I value the latter more than the former.
Theoretically, give 5 people (with some semblance of experience) identical rigs in same location and they'll get nearly identical data, but they most certainly will not create identical images.
That said, I have not bought data from someone else's rig, though I did consider it for southern targets.
Well Written Insightful Engaging
Just the be clear, using a remote facility does not mean you don't set up, tune, manage and own your own equipment. In my case I have equipment in two remote locations and all of that equipment is mine and I installed it myself. I ran every wire, did the polar alignment, balanced the scope, etc. just like I do when out in the field.
Yes, some site will set up the equipment for you but I and many (if not most) others choose to do it ourselves. As you consider your feelings on this topic please keep this in mind.
Kevin
Yes, some site will set up the equipment for you but I and many (if not most) others choose to do it ourselves. As you consider your feelings on this topic please keep this in mind.
Kevin
Helpful Concise