This idea of 'observer' is difficult not to misrepresent, I think. It's a bad choice of word. In a strict sense, even _we_ aren't 'observers' in the common sense of 'conscious oberver' at the quantum level, since what we actually perceive as what we call an observation is clearly only a construct of our own brains (see Epistemology 101). The initial act of a human-scale visual observation by us starts when a group of photons strikes the photoreceptors at the back of our eye(s). Coded neural messages are sent to the visual cortex, etc. etc.
This is what we colloquially call an 'observation' in visual terms. Of course there are other kinds of observations using different senses however visual observations are more prone to this misunderstanding because of the quantum nature of the stimulus involved - i.e. photons.
We are then no different to a piece of machinery that might intercept the same photons and do something to them (like scatter them - i.e. the atmosphere). Any interaction between a quantum entity and something that is separate from it must constitute an 'observation'.
The idea that somehow consciousness must be involved in the 'observation' is a misunderstanding brought about by the misuse of the word.