Thanks Tim, But that is not science. That is still just picture taking. Yes any digital image is made up of data and there are other associated data along with it. If the image is a .fits and the equipment has been setup properly then data other than the actual image is in the header. I guess my point was when someone says they have astronomical data I assume they mean data of scientific value as opposed to something that is just aesthetically pleasing. What Darren presented is certainly a very nice picture, but then I can get that or better online or even in one of several books I have. And yes, Darren's efforts are most likely much better than what I could do taking pretty pictures. BTW, Darren did ask for comments, questions, suggestions and criticisms. Of what scientific value is a pretty picture? We can indeed do real science, but it must go beyond just taking images. Some amateurs with very modest equipment have followed several SN and provided significant science type data and have received recognition for such. It is possible, if you are very lucky, to image something and be the first to see a SN. Reporting that can be important and a great ego boost. But in reality, someone would catch it sooner or later anyway. There are many professional and amateur sky surveys going on every night. If you want to make a real contribution, follow a new SN doing photometry or spectroscopy. Yes, it is more work, but also orders of magnitude more satisfying than talking pretty pictures. Jeff Hopkins Phoenix Observatory (187283) Counting Photons Phoenix, Arizona USA www.hposoft.com/Astro/astro.html On May 21, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Tim Jones wrote: > Jeff, > > Click on the image and the page will display with the overlay and the imaging > details. > > Tim -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list.