I began taking astronomical images in 1993. At that time, most amateur astroimages were being taken with film. Although I did try doing a few film images, once I discovered the (then primitive) CCD camera, I was hooked. Since then the technology has improved by a staggering amount and the number of people using it has exploded from less than a hundred to thousands. In 1993 it was pretty easy to determine the pedigree of an image. For the most part if you posted an image, you had taken it with equipment bought or built by yourself, set up by yourself, and operated by yourself. You processed the images yourself and posted them, most often to your own webpage or printed them for your own wall. Now, as I write this in 2010, although the images are much clearer, their pedigree is much less so. We often see images that are posted by "imagers" that are in many ways not 100% their images. A recent APOD displayed an image taken by person "A" using a rental scope at a remote site set up by person "B" and then processed by person "C". In recent years it is not uncommon for an "imager" to never lay hands on the actual imaging equipment (and in fact may never have seen it). Conversely, the person operating the equipment may or may not do anything with the data generated except to pass it on to someone else. Is this trend a bad thing? I think it depends. Most imagers do fully disclose just who did what and it certainly can result in some very high quality images, especially when the data being processed by the "amateur" is taken with the large, multimillion dollar telescopes and cameras of professional observatories, which is another trend we have seen in recent years. Certainly I have nothing against collaborative images, collaboration is most often a good thing. What I would caution the reader against is assigning too much credit or attributing too much skill to the persons posting such images. I feel that an individual deserves credit for what they have done, but ONLY that part that they actually did do themselves. As such, I think an image where everything was done by one individual deserves a higher level of praise than an image where this is not the case. To fail to observe this detail is to fail to give credit where credit is due. In conclusion, I would suggest to the reader that they enjoy whatever images they are viewing but pay a small bit of attention to just how that image came to be. It may not always be quite what it appears to be at first glance.