Telescope Reviews: Technical question and philosophical question

If your CG5 is at the point that it reliably autoguides for an indefinite period of time, then you could probably do this right now--or at least come close. You just need a scope and mount combination that won't drop the guiding over the course of a few hours. Most of the better software packages, including CCDSoft and Maxim and probably others, will allow you to schedule out an imaging run, include filter changes, and some time between exposures for the scope to re-acquire and center the guide star. Your CG5 may be capable of this right now.

The trick is the Meridian flip. I'm not aware of an easy/low cost way to handle that. Unless you are very well polar aligned, you may need to re-center your object and you will certainly need to find a new guide star (or, even worse, rotate the camera to get the same guide star again). The meridian flip is going to be the limitation under most circumstances. Unless, of course, you are using a fork mount

I find that as you progress in astrophotography, where your skills are employed slowly shifts. As a newbie, just getting the image in the field of view of a small chip may be a challenge. Eventually that problem gets handled (either through improved skill on the part of the operator or with better equipment) and you start worrying about achieving better focus. Again, the problem gets solved either through skill or more equipment and your emphasis moves to tracking accuracy and post processing. The tracking accuracy problem eventually gets solved with an autoguider, an upgraded mount, or both (as well as a liberal application of skill), and you can start focusing on post processing techniques and (finally/for the first time) true artistry. You will start to look at composition, framing, color palette, which aspects of the subject you are going to emphasize, naturalness of the subject, etc..

I'd argue that it is only after you turn into the "person who knows how to operate some fancy astro equipment" that you are truly freed up to include some real artistry in your images.

Heck, you see the same in terrestrial photography. While you don't need to spend as much money in ordinary photography to get a technically excellent image, there is still a clear distinction between technical excellence and artistry. Most artists--at least the good ones--are also technically solid or they wouldn't be able to effectively communicate their vision.

I don't see that the ability to capture good data--whether it be achieved through equipment and automation or through sweat and hard won skills--detracts from the artistry of creating a superb astrophotograph.

Heck, you had the same questions raised when photography first appeared as an art form. Some people felt that painting might die out as an art form since a more "accurate" image could be captured with a camera than with a paintbrush. Others suggested that there was no artistry in photography--that it was simply a craft that could be mastered by anyone. Clearly, neither turned out to be the case.

My still distant goal as an astrophotographer is to show that it is just as much an art form as landscape photography or portraiture. In order to do that I must first master the craft and tools of astrophotography. I prefer the "sweat" method first in order to create a better understanding of the issues involved, but I have almost followed that up with the "money" method. Even the money I spend on my equipment--in order to free me up from the more mundane portions of astrophotography--comes from my sweat since I still work for a living.

Some of the other posters mentioned that one could download far better images of an object than can be produced by amateurs, so what is the point at all? They are missing the difference between technical excellence and true artistry. When I make my own images with my own data I am able to present the image the way I wish to--convey my own artistic vision (such as it is). I can choose the framing I want. I can choose the orientation I want. Must M42 always be shown with the running main oriented on the left? I can choose my own range of contrast. I can choose to emphasize the dust and gas around a galaxy, or to draw out the spiral structure. When I image an HII region, I can decide whether I want to downplay or emphasize the sea of surrounding stars. I don't agree that every image of a given object is the same simply because the object itself doesn't change much on human time scales. How I choose to present the image is the important piece.