hi there sorry if this sounds like a dumb question.
i'm interested is viewwing some galaxies etc as i have never seen one before with my naked eye. there are however a few questions i do have.
1: i see many beautiful pictures of galaxies both here and other places and am curious, are all colour images of galaxies done with imaging programs can you actually see colour with the naked eye?
2: do you need a special long exposure camera to take an image of a galaxy?
3: do you need to be very far from the city to even bother trying, or can it be achieved in outer surburbia
any info would be greatly appreciated.
thanks
Derivious
1) you won't get any colour when observing, galaxies will look like a grey fuzzy , unfortunately you won't get the views you see in images
2) the minimum you need for any real galaxy images is an eq mount, a scope, dslr and a t ring to connect the dslr to the scope. Software wise you will need some stacking software like deepskystacker and something like photoshop
3) it is possible to observe galaxies in light pollution, I have seen them in the middle of Sydney but manage your expectations. It is incredible that you can observe these objects but they don't look like the Hubble images
Ngc 253 is a good target at the moment, also the smc and the Lmc can be observed naked eye.
Hi Tyrone,
Shorts answer are:
1: No
2: Yes
3: Yes, with the right equipment.
To clarify further.
1: Galaxies are normally very dim objects and even with large scopes colour can be hard to define. M42, the Great Nebula in Orion has been said to show some pink and green but you would need to be using something along the size of a 10" f5 newt to see it. And some practice.
2: To collect enough photons for those fabulous pix you see posted aggregated exposures of several hours or more are quite often needed. I am using a DSLR camera and some software which allows me to take multiple long exposures ( several minutes each ) and then stacking those images to collect all the photons onto one digital image. It also requires accurate tracking and guiding to get good quality images in the first place. You start to see why astrophotgraphy is called the long slippery slope and your credit never fully recovers.
3: Using the above method basically I have captured images successfully and I am only about 8km from our CBD so outer suburbia should be possible. It depends on a lot of other factors like local street lighting and atmospheric disturbances but it can be done and there are multiple methods that can overcome problems. That is not to say that the multiple methods can introduce their own multiple problems.
A few galaxies are scope visual with a big scope. They will be dim and not show colour. Sculptor and Sombrero are possible with good dark adaptation in a 10". Dark skies would make them a lot easier, Sculptor is near zenith about 10 pm at present.
Binoculars (10 x 50 or so) will find the Small Magellanic Cloud and the Large Magellanic Cloud. These are both satellite galaxies of the Milky Way but visually just appear as dense clouds of stars with no defined shape.
NGC 2070, the Tarantula nebula is in the LMC and is visible in good skies with binoculars.
47 Tucana is a huge globular ( very pretty ) near the SMC and is also bino visible.
Both the SMC and LMC are close to the South Celestial Pole and visible most of the year.
I suggest you get Stellarium onto your PC ( free to download ) and start exploring. It will show you where they are for your location and what to look for.
Hi Tyrone,
Not such a dumb question, really.
We all need to build up our knowledge from such questions/discussions.
Don't be afraid to ask.
However, I can't think of any galaxies that are coloured even in Hubble images.
They are generally just an agglomerated collection of starlight and dark lanes.
It will be testing to try to spot dim galaxies from a light polluted area with a 4.5" aperture scope. (Except maybe the two Magellanic Clouds as mentioned by Aidan, and possibly Centaurus A NGC5128).
Nebulae on the other hand can be various colours, but generally colours will only be brought out in long exposure photographs and stacking image data, as Aidan has mentioned.
Some exceptions are some planetary nebulae like the Blue Planetary nebula, little gem, etc.
Again, these will be testing under your conditions, but don't let that stop you from trying.
Hi Tyrone,
Not such a dumb question, really.
We all need to build up our knowledge from such questions/discussions.
Don't be afraid to ask.
However, I can't think of any galaxies that are coloured even in Hubble images.
They are generally just an agglomerated collection of starlight and dark lanes.
It will be testing to try to spot dim galaxies from a light polluted area with a 4.5" aperture scope. (Except maybe the two Magellanic Clouds as mentioned by Aidan, and possibly Centaurus A NGC5128).
Nebulae on the other hand can be various colours, but generally colours will only be brought out in long exposure photographs and stacking image data, as Aidan has mentioned.
Some exceptions are some planetary nebulae like the Blue Planetary nebula, little gem, etc.
Again, these will be testing under your conditions, but don't let that stop you from trying.
Would something like the horsehead nebula still look like a horse with the eye.
I assume it's colourless though.
As earlier posts have said, colour is not something that is readily seen through a telescope. All due to our human eyes not being very good under low light levels.
Ever noticed when you are in a very dimly lit room, what you see is in black and white? The colours are all still there, but the cells in our eyes responsible for colour vision are not responsive at such low levels of illumination. So, astronomical objects we just don't see in colour (except for the Moon and planets). This colour perception also has one major caveat - the individual. Some people's eyes are more sensitive to low light than others, and with a large telescope they can see some pinks and blues in some nebulae. Age is another factor, and eye health. But beyond a handful of objects, and many individual stars, we don't see colour through a telescope. Oh, and gender also is a factor!!! More than 1/3 of all males have colour blindness to some extent, from really bugger all to no colour perception at all. Colour blindness is very, very rare in women. Females tend to also have more acute colour perception than males do too - so there you go, something womenfolk can do much better than us menfolk!
Now, photography has done nothing to help newcomers to astronomy with a brand new telescope. NOTHING other than create false expectations. This is not a criticism of astrophotogrphy at all. Instead, it is an unintended consequence. People look at the pretty pictures, but are unaware of the technical situation that creates these images, so people then expect to see a gorgeous spiral galaxy with a little telescope, with magnificent stands of spiral arms and pink dots of H2 regions, or a colourful irredecent image of the Crab Nebula, or the red colouration that surrounds the Horse Head nebula.
Sorry, that just isn't the case,
Instead, things through a telescope are much more subtle and challenging to see. There are a lot of technical challenges that need to be understood, and several observational techniques that we need to teach our eyes so we can overcome some of the issues our human eyes have.
To give you an idea of how things actually appear through a scope, have a look at sketches done of objects. The sketching sticky here in IIS has a great collection of such works of many different objects and using a great variety of telescopes, including 114mm reflectors:
The Horse Head Nebula: This is one of the most challenging objects in the entire sky to see. The smallest aperture I've heard of being used to see the Horsie has been a 6", but typically no less than an 8" is needed. BUT, and a BIG BUT, aperture is not the only requirement. To see the Horsie also requires a dark sky, and atmospheric conditions to be every good. Specialized filters are also of great assistance too.
I've seen the Horsie in my 17.5" dob on a few occasions. It has been the most challenging object to repeatedly see. I saw it easily one night from my usual dark sky site on one occasion, and on another, when atmospheric transparency was poor I could not see it to save my life. Seeing the Horsie is an excise in trying to spot a black wart on a black background. When you do manage to see this 'wart', it is just a soft black featureless faint bulge that cuts into a slightly less dark background. No red colouration, and no distinct equine features.
I have not had the chance to sketch the Horsie. The night I did see it most clearly I was not able to do a sketch. And knowing how well I am able to see it, I really need to wait for the best of conditions to come around again, otherwise I am just shortchanging myself with it.
Atmospheric conditions? Transparency? What the hell?
Best way to help you understand is with an example. Below are two sketches I've done of Thor's Helmet. Both were done using my 17.5", both when Thor's Helmet was overhead. The one on the left was done first, and as it turns out when transparency was not too crash hot. The one on the right is more recent, but transparency happened to be exquisite that night, and I was able to see a whole lot more detail.
'Seeing' refers to the thermal stability of the atmosphere. When seeing is poor, the stars shimmer more. In a telescope, as one increases magnification, atmospheric thermal currents begin to become more apparent. Poor seeing and an image shimmers and swims around at low magnification. Great seeing (thermally cool and stable atmosphere), and magnification can be pushed all the way to the telescopes' limits.
Last edited by mental4astro; 27-11-2015 at 12:05 PM.
Reason: more info
As earlier posts have said, colour is not something that is readily seen through a telescope. All due to our human eyes not being very good under low light levels.
Ever noticed when you are in a very dimly lit room, what you see is in black and white? The colours are all still there, but the cells in our eyes responsible for colour vision are not responsive at such low levels of illumination. So, astronomical objects we just don't see in colour (except for the Moon and planets). This colour perception also has one major caveat - the individual. Some people's eyes are more sensitive to low light than others, and with a large telescope they can see some pinks and blues in some nebulae. Age is another factor, and eye health. But beyond a handful of objects, and many individual stars, we don't see colour through a telescope. Oh, and gender also is a factor!!! More than 1/3 of all males have colour blindness to some extent, from really bugger all to no colour perception at all. Colour blindness is very, very rare in women. Females tend to also have more acute colour perception than males do too - so there you go, something womenfolk can do much better than us menfolk!
Now, photography has done nothing to help newcomers to astronomy with a brand new telescope. NOTHING other than create false expectations. This is not a criticism of astrophotogrphy at all. Instead, it is an unintended consequence. People look at the pretty pictures, but are unaware of the technical situation that creates these images, so people then expect to see a gorgeous spiral galaxy with a little telescope, with magnificent stands of spiral arms and pink dots of H2 regions, or a colourful irredecent image of the Crab Nebula, or the red colouration that surrounds the Horse Head nebula.
Sorry, that just isn't the case,
Instead, things through a telescope are much more subtle and challenging to see. There are a lot of technical challenges that need to be understood, and several observational techniques that we need to teach our eyes so we can overcome some of the issues our human eyes have.
To give you an idea of how things actually appear through a scope, have a look at sketches done of objects. The sketching sticky here in IIS has a great collection of such works of many different objects and using a great variety of telescopes, including 114mm reflectors:
The Horse Head Nebula: This is one of the most challenging objects in the entire sky to see. The smallest aperture I've heard of being used to see the Horsie has been a 6", but typically no less than an 8" is needed. BUT, and a BIG BUT, aperture is not the only requirement. To see the Horsie also requires a dark sky, and atmospheric conditions to be every good. Specialized filters are also of great assistance too.
I've seen the Horsie in my 17.5" dob on a few occasions. It has been the most challenging object to repeatedly see. I saw it easily one night from my usual dark sky site on one occasion, and on another, when atmospheric transparency was poor I could not see it to save my life. Seeing the Horsie is an excise in trying to spot a black wart on a black background. When you do manage to see this 'wart', it is just a soft black featureless faint bulge that cuts into a slightly less dark background. No red colouration, and no distinct equine features.
I have not had the chance to sketch the Horsie. The night I did see it most clearly I was not able to do a sketch. And knowing how well I am able to see it, I really need to wait for the best of conditions to come around again, otherwise I am just shortchanging myself with it.
Atmospheric conditions? Transparency? What the hell?
Best way to help you understand is with an example. Below are two sketches I've done of Thor's Helmet. Both were done using my 17.5", both when Thor's Helmet was overhead. The one on the left was done first, and as it turns out when transparency was not too crash hot. The one on the right is more recent, but transparency happened to be exquisite that night, and I was able to see a whole lot more detail.
'Seeing' refers to the thermal stability of the atmosphere. When seeing is poor, the stars shimmer more. In a telescope, as one increases magnification, atmospheric thermal currents begin to become more apparent. Poor seeing and an image shimmers and swims around at low magnification. Great seeing (thermally cool and stable atmosphere), and magnification can be pushed all the way to the telescopes' limits.
I thought only I actually used pen an paper to draw what I see. Did not know there is a whole technique devoted to it. I honestly felt childish at first with my pen and pad simply drawind what I see, I suppose it's what galileo had to do. Despite my amateur questions I do have a good knowledge of human eyesight and my question was more blind hope than anything else. I was shocked when I saw hues of red on jupiter as I assumed it would be colourless. As you explained I forgot about how different wavelengths travel etc and even though red is sort of visible other colours in the spectrum are probably outlandish to assume visibility of. I like the video and I have always been a fan of art, you literally just combined two of my favourite things in one video. These Images you have provided below are more of an naked eye view then, also you have given me an idea of what to look for. Looking for a nebula expecting colour would of rendered my hunts useless as I simply wouldn't of known what im hunting for. This gives me a new respect for the images I see here, but for me astronomy is what I can see with my eye and $1000s of dollars combined with many hours to give images which you don't see is sort of a false representation despite their obvious beauty. I understand the great feeling of satisfaction you would get producing these images(one horsehead I saw here was amazing) but in reality it would feel no different to looking at internet images already taken. For me the most breathtaking thing about this hobby is the fact that what I see is the real thing, no photos, no registax just you and the un altered image alone together. I'm probably born in the wrong century but something about watching jupiter and knowing im looking at the real deal in almost real time gives me shivers. I truly hope my naive views has not offended anyone as I must be very clear I have a huge respect the people taking these images and even more respect for the Images they produce, I will one day hope to make my own still. When I take photos I like it to show people what I saw myself not what I couldn't see.
