You are an imager when ...

[Guest]

1. You take frames instead of photographs

2. You never ever EVER post anything online that has not been processed

3. You take dark and flat frames when imaging your pets

4. You proudly announce to all and sundry that cameras on 'phones are useless

5. You stack hundreds of frames for family portraits

6. You think that compact digital cameras belong in museums

7. You consider the word "afocal" offensive

8. All holiday images are taken using separate RGB filters

9. You have 1 TB of data per month that you will get round to processing "one day"

10. You look down on anyone who does not use the "right" terminology, especially if they call you an "astrophotographer"

 

OTHERS...

[Tweedledee]

I scored zero!.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Tweedledee said:

I scored zero!.

I'm guilty of #1 and #2. I get half a point for #4, as I only say it to my wife and daughter.

 

I HAVE been known to stack multiple images of flowers and have stitched images of buildings, such as the BT tower.

 

I still use afocal with my Coronado PST.

 

I'm partially guilty of #9 but don't reprocess very often now, as I'm more busy.

[Smithysteve]

I thought 'frames' we're what you hung your 'piccies' in!

My IPad takes decent shots... better than my iPhone anyway...! ?

So I guess I am not an astrophotographer like some of you...

Cheers! ?

 

[Guest]

An "imager" uses the jargon, whereas a photographer does not.

 

Whether you use the jargon or not, you take some great snaps/images/photos (delete according to personal preference).

[Dean Watson]

But lets not forget, the obviousity - You are an imager when you don't look through a scope anymore, just an image on a screen.  What with the lunar/planetary imaging ive been doing lately (and using celestron starsense to aim) its all on a laptop screen.  Just like a professional! ;-)

[Perkil8r]

I take Subs (short for sub-exposures) not shots, images, photo's and I don't put them in frames either. And just by that very statement I know I must be an imager

[Guest]

19 hours ago, DeanWatson said:

But lets not forget, the obviousity - You are an imager when you don't look through a scope anymore, just an image on a screen.  What with the lunar/planetary imaging ive been doing lately (and using celestron starsense to aim) its all on a laptop screen.  Just like a professional! ;-)

Combining two recent discussions together, I don't look through a telescope very often but I look through binoculars. I sometimes bin browse when taking longer exposures.

 

The last two nights I've been using Mk 1 eyeball to look for early Perseids.

[Smithysteve]

This seems to be a very polarising subject, people seem to be imagers or observers, each proud of their stance...

 

Personally, I have both feet in the observer camp, I love it!  I like looking at all the imagers work, but not interested (at this time) in imaging.

 

Do we have any people aboard EMS with a foot equally in both camps? 

 

Cheers!

[Guest]

Joking apart, my bigger foot is in the astrophotography camp. I think I'd have to take driven exposures to be termed an "imager", though.

 

I'm a bit distracted by Perseids at the moment but I'm thinking of photographing some of my binocular targets. For example, I recently took my first shot of M11.