Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Observational and Visual Astronomy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 08-07-2018, 08:14 AM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
The role of Imagination in Visual Observation

As the title suggests, does the human imagination influence what we think we are seeing through an eye piece? Back in the day of Dunlop and Herschell, and the other great visual explorers, the available equipment was limited, and most replied on sketching to capture the detail they observed. We can speculate that they had the benefit of darker skies, less pollution, etc, but their frame of reference for any object they could target was not tainted by having seen a detailed image of this object. Today, nearly everyone owning a scope has access to tools such as Sky Safari (with it's images) or other planetarium software, or online images from various sources including the Hubble and various great observatory camera systems.
So do observers today convince themselves they can see detail that is not really there in the EP, because they have a memory of the detail from images they have seen? Does this go beyond simply using reference clues from images to know where to concentrate their attention, to being convinced that they are seeing this "Wishful Detail"?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-07-2018, 08:40 AM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,979
Imagination is not so much as knowledge.

Dunlop et al had no idea about what they were looking at. No notion of galaxies, nebulae, stellar development or relativity. Sure they could resolve globular clusters, but not the understanding of their role.

Once you understand what you are looking at, you not only begin to see more.

Similar with novice eyes vs experienced eyes. Younger eyes will be more light sensitive and have a larger pupil, but the experienced eyes will actually see more as all the training and understanding comes into play.

I see this when I think back on my own experiences and look at my collection of sketches spanning more than 35 years. While as a kid I knew what a nebula was, i had no notion of their actual 3D structure, nor of the forces at play that form its structures or its future. When i looked through a scope 35 years ago, I just saw a fan shaped glowing "thing" that is M42. Today, even when using the exact same scope, I recignise its actual bowl shaped structure created by the power of the Trapezium cluster, recognise the dark pillar that is the Fish Mouth and that it is the gravity of dozens of protostars that make for why it is resisting the erosive power of the Trapezium. And I can also trace out a much wider expansion of faint nebulosity even though my eyes are 35 years older, but they are 35 years more experienced.

Dunlop had a bigger scope and darker skies, but he didn't have the knowledge base that I have today.

Not so much imagination as more knowledge and experience.

Alex.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-07-2018, 11:56 AM
rally
Registered User

rally is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 896
Glen,

The hypotheisis should be testable to some degree.

Look at the drawings from yesteryear in the old books, charts and published works and compare them to both drawings of today and images throughout the ages.
You might even be able to have a timeline that shows the change in "perception" as the knowledge and information became available.

You could even segregate the images into black and white film, DSLR amateur through to high quality amateur and Hubble level

As Alex says - when you know something should be there you just keep looking harder till you see it !

There is probably already some good published research on the process of visual sensing, visual perception, brain processing and then the reprocessing from memory when the drawing process is occurring.
Im guessing the medium used is also very much an influencer
eg Quill, Pencil, Graphite, Ink Pens, Ink markers, water colour, acrylic paint, airbrush etc etc
Each medium and the user will have a different take on on how to represent what their mind "saw"
Just like we see different porttraiture of the same person - an art class has a subject and everyone paints the same subject - yet everyones art looks very different.

Is that imagination or is that actually something slightly different - eg perception, level of memory skill for detail, knowledge as stated, skill using that particular medium, limitations or advantages of the medium in use.

You might also find that objects like the moon where a telescope is capable of resolving a high level of detail might influence an artist from rendering merely dark and light patches of the surface into craters and full three dimensional detail ! . . . as compared to other much more recently discovered detail in globs, galaxies, planets, nebs, large scale structures, faint galactic structural features and maybe even including dust.
A trend might emerge that artistic representation and level of detail and correctness in detail follows discovery and published detail.

Its a really interesting question - someone could probably wangle a PhD on this I reckon !

Rally
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:54 PM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,979
Sketching is a curious item, and one I only just glanced over because there are more factors involved, though the core one is still ignorance.

Many, if not the vast majority of pre-photographic astronomers were not artists, and did not have the "imagination" on how to best portray what they saw through the eyepiece. This makes media selection even more difficult.

Another limiting factor was the printing technology of the time. Printing was a high contrast exercise, and one not suited the the subtleties of DSO's. Delicate pencil drawings were not possible to reproduce with the contemporary printing technology of the time. Below is an 19th century print of M31. Here you can see much of what I'm talking about. The ignorance of what the artist was looking at, the limitations of the medium being used, and the illustrative limitations of the astronomer (sorry I cannot remember the astronomer who's work this is):

Click image for larger version

Name:	Historical skech of M31.jpg
Views:	39
Size:	103.2 KB
ID:	230443

Now, compare it to my sketch of M31. I do have an understanding of what M31 is, I've seen many photos of it so I come better prepared when I come to the eyepiece, I do have some artistic capacity, and I can use a medium (soft pastels) that allow for easy reproduction of the original (digital photo).
I also have the benefit of the advantage of having easy access to a very broad source of sketching inspiration:

Click image for larger version

Name:	M31 LR.JPG
Views:	45
Size:	103.0 KB
ID:	230444

Below is John Herschel's printed sketch of Omega Centauri:

Click image for larger version

Name:	John Herschel Omega Centauri.png
Views:	39
Size:	90.4 KB
ID:	230445

Below is my rendition of Omega Centauri down from Sydney using a 17.5" dob:

Click image for larger version

Name:	Omega Centauri.JPG
Views:	40
Size:	169.9 KB
ID:	230446

Below is a collage of various sketches of galaxies from different early astronomers. Biggest difficulty for these astronomers is not knowing what they were portraying, optical equipment, and illustrative capability. While some galaxies below are recognisable, many are not. This is something less of a problem for current astronomers, amateur or otherwise:

Click image for larger version

Name:	Cambridge Uni Press Cosmic Whirlpools.jpg
Views:	38
Size:	47.1 KB
ID:	230447
image from Cambridge Uni Press.

Mind you, there were some VERY capable early astronomers who were quite accomplished artists. One of these was William Parsons. Below is his sketch of M51 from the mid 1840's. However, reproducing this quality of sketch with the printing technology of the time would have been impossible:

Click image for larger version

Name:	William Parsons M51.jpg
Views:	34
Size:	64.3 KB
ID:	230448

But now on a bit more reflection, I do guess that comparing early sketches to contemporary sketches helps demonstrate the difference that knowledge makes to current observing and sketching of DSO's.

Alex.

Last edited by mental4astro; 08-07-2018 at 02:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-07-2018, 02:25 PM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
I will suggest that sketches are images, be they by the early pioneers of astronomy or those of today. Each of those early images, if they were widely available at the time, go towards expanding that Knowledge that Alex refers to below. However, it was only with the advent of film and more modern digital camera based images that the perception of detail could be transformed. These images then form the knowledge extension, without camera images we would be limited to sketches made by folks using the best equipment in the best location, capturing real time photons. Coming back to "wishful detail", tonight's observer is armed with a vast extension of his/her visual senses thanks to detailed images. Does this not impact what he/she thinks they see? I believe it does because they know it is there.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-07-2018, 03:57 PM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,979
I see where you are coming from now.

Sketches actually relates exactly to your arguement, just as much as observation because they are the direct consequence of observation. Is the illustrator depicting what they are seeing or "wishful detail"...

I have read reports and seen sketches that have left me thinking "Really!? They saw that with that scope???"

But I also know that experience and visual acuity varies tremendously beyween people. Some men scream til they are blue in the face that humans cannot see colour through an eyepiece (1/3 of all males are colour blind to some extent). Well I can, and I can also atest that colour perception also changes within individuals over time.

However, I would also have to agree that there can also be an element of "wishful detail". Now if this is purely wishful or deliberate deception, that's really grey. Same with imaging. I know that there are people who don't delare all their data sources...

Wavytone started a thread in this forum about the Saturnian moons. I thought I could make out Mimas, but seeing wasn't stable enough and the glare of Saturn added to the confusion of the scene, so I opted to say "no" to seeing Mimas on that night. I honestly thought I saw what may have been Mimas, but my experience told me the image was too fleeting and too bright, though not impossible, but certainly unconvincing to my experience. I'm not making muself out to be a righteous prat - I'm man enough to declare I have my own foibles. But that line between wishful and certainty can be a vague one...

By the same token, those same photographs can also serve to prove that you actually did see what you thought you did. This very often happens to me when i compare a sketch I've done to a photo of it. I may go into a sketch thinking "ok, this object will only be so big, so I'll make my scale this size", only to find that the longer I spend on that object I can make out that it extends further and further and further again, and I find that I actually can't fit the whole thing in because that reference photo or initial observation happened to be too cropped.

That's one advantage of doing my DSO sketching surrounded by others - they've also seen the same object through my scope that same night, so I will be called out very quickly

Last edited by mental4astro; 08-07-2018 at 05:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14-07-2018, 10:55 PM
DeepSkyBagger's Avatar
DeepSkyBagger (Patrick)
Astro Pom

DeepSkyBagger is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 41
Very interesting thread. As a visual deep-sky observer for over 40 years, I have been constantly aware of this issue for a very long time. When I first started making sketches of deep-sky objects (in the mid-1970s), I deliberately would not look at photographs of the object beforehand, in an attempt to defeat this I-know-it's-there bias.

These days, with the huge flood of high quality images, it's harder to avoid seeing an image of an object before viewing it. I do not, however, inspect images shortly before observing in the hope that I can see something.

I observe carefully, recording what I can see. Sometimes I suspect detail that I'm not sure about. I will note the suspicion, but not make it part of the sketch. I think we *are* biased by our preconceptions (and our previous experience, e.g. of seeing an image of what we're looking at).

Equally, I think it's something we can only avoid with great difficulty. It's human nature.

I agree with Alexander that knowledge informs our perceptions. It has to. It's how we survive at a basic level. Knowing that a tiger can eat you will prevent you behaving towards it as if it was just a large pussycat.

FYI, the sketch of M31 was drawn by French astronomer Etienne Leopold Trouvelot at Harvard Observatory in 1874. Continuing the theme of us being influenced by what we have already seen (what we know, if you like), here's an observation of M31 made by American astronomer George Philips Bond, again at Harvard, but this time in 1847.

To me, it is very clear that Trouvelot had seen this drawing before he made his own. To a modern observer, both appear 'wrong' in exactly the same way.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (M31 Bond.jpg)
200.6 KB37 views
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18-07-2018, 11:00 AM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,979
Patrick,

My take on images is very similar to yours. I do use images to help me in the decision making process of what objects would make good sketching candidates. Like you, I don't dwell on those images. I take each object for what it shows me through the eyepiece on the night, from each location. I know that a camera can pick up fainter stuff than my eye can, so it is futile for me to chase these. I will however attempt to view certain details, such as Bok Globuals in M8, or the H regions in M83, but these are also challenges that I know lie within reach of visual. If I can't see them, I don't "draw" them because I also know that the quality of the sky presents its own variables that may or may not allow these details to be seen. AND I know that sky quality conditions can change across the evening. Different locations can also provide better or worse conditions too.

My first view of the Eagle Nebula from a dark site is a great example. From Wiruna, the dark sky site of the ASNSW near Ilford, early on in the evening with my 17.5" dob it was very easy to see the dark pillars that form The Eagle. Quite remarkable how stark the pillars were. So easy to see that I could also make out the bright leading edge of the pillars. The sketch I did is below. Then about an hour after I completed the sketch, I looked through a 25" dob at the same nebula, and the dark pillars were impossible to make out, and the nebula overall became dull and less vibrant. Conditions at the site had deteriorated in just that one hour. Crap happens...

Click image for larger version

Name:	M16 Eagle Nebula.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	133.9 KB
ID:	230930

Another time, from my home in Sydney, I set up my 8" dobbie to sketch M42 the day after New Years Day. Seeing was poor, but the image I felt was nice enough to sketch from under urban skies. Two days later, I set up my 17.5" also at home, looked again at M42, and the Trapezium threw up something I didn't expect. We can easily see the 6 stars that "form" The Trapezium, but now I was confronted by Trap. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H & I! This was something I did not know about at all. It had me in a spin this view, and I had to rush inside to find out if this was really the case or not!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20-07-2018, 04:06 PM
75BC (Brendon)
Always in the dark.

75BC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northern Suburbs, Perth.
Posts: 126
I don’t know if I’m going to add or detract from this very interesting discussion.
I hope to give a perspective from a less experienced observer that will add something though.

I don’t think I subconsciously add anything to what I’m seeing. Partly because of the way my mind works I suppose but also I don’t look at tons of pictures of targets either.

I will never forget seeing colour in M42 from the South West one time. This was real because even though I was in my late 20’s, it was still before I had learnt much about what I was looking at, so I didn’t have much to influence what I was seeing. I didn’t realize until some years later people say it doesn’t happen.

When I first joined IIS and read about training your eyes I was a bit unsure about the difference such training would result in. I’m not a regular observer, but I’ am seeing more and more. Planetary is a personal favorite but anything I observe I discern more detail than I did when I first got a real scope some 15 years ago. It just came with time and practice also, nothing conscious. I even take a casual approach to looking at pics, not studying them for details.

Not sure how this fits in with people of your experience level though. But that’s mine.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 21-07-2018, 03:07 AM
DeepSkyBagger's Avatar
DeepSkyBagger (Patrick)
Astro Pom

DeepSkyBagger is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 41
Alexander,

We're talking the same language here, I think. Very similar philosophies.

Your sketch of M16 is stunning. The object is a good case in point for me. I made an observation of it almost exactly four years ago from my home location. From here, M16 transits at only 22 degrees above the horizon, and my horizon to the south overlooks a heck of a lot of built-up area, so at 22 degrees, the sky is really bright and a sort of sick custard colour.

Now M16 is one of those objects that you simply can't help seeing loads of images of, so I knew exactly what it should look like. My observation of what I actually saw is attached.

At the time, I was actually quite pleased to have seen any nebulosity at all!
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (NGC 6611-14156.jpg)
70.5 KB28 views
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 21-07-2018, 03:16 AM
DeepSkyBagger's Avatar
DeepSkyBagger (Patrick)
Astro Pom

DeepSkyBagger is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 41
Brendon,

'I will never forget seeing colour in M42 from the South West one time. This was real because even though I was in my late 20’s, it was still before I had learnt much about what I was looking at, so I didn’t have much to influence what I was seeing. I didn’t realize until some years later people say it doesn’t happen.'

On 12th December 1995, I took delivery of my first 12" reflector. I'd never owned a telescope that large before. My previous scope was one of those camera-shop 4.5" reflectors. First light was M42. Here's an extract from my journal of that night:

'M42 was looked at again and I was amazed to see colour clearly visible. The Huygenian region was green and the streamers north and south from it were very distinctly red.'

At this time, I firmly believed that colour was not visible in deep-sky objects, except blue and green planetary nebulae. Red was a definite no-no.

I still see green and red in M42 whenever I look at it with my current 12" reflector. Colour vision is a very subjective thing. Just because many people can't see colours in M42 doesn't mean that you or I *can't*.

I very rarely see colours in DSOs, but M42 is a stand-out exception for me.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 22-07-2018, 06:25 PM
StuTodd
Registered User

StuTodd is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Posts: 353
Suggestibility is something I try to avoid in outreach.

A friend was showing Omega Cent to a member of the public in the 18" Dob.
He mentioned that he could see an "Owl's face" in the cluster and asked the member of the public if he could too. "Yes", was their reply.

The seeing was too poor to see the face, suggesting being able to either made the visitor feel awkward that he couldn't or just bowed to peer pressure. A psychologist friend gave this human behaviour a name which escapes me.

Seeing thing which aren't there and having the brain fill in the details of a memory are everyday occourances.

Great topic glend!

Last edited by StuTodd; 23-07-2018 at 10:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 22-07-2018, 07:51 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
I think is was Herschel who said "once discovered an object can easily be found with smaller apertures"
Expectation and anticipation combined with training....

The book I'm reading at the moment "Mapping the Spectrum" by Hentschel goes into some detail on the visual aspects of observing and the ongoing problems of replicating visual pictures in the press - early engraving and early photography techniques.......
https://global.oup.com/academic/prod...c=au&lang=en&#
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 23-07-2018, 10:11 AM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,979
Apophenia, or Patternicity, is the hardwired way out brain looks for patterns in an otherwise unfamiliar or chaotic field. It is unavoidable. Seeing a face in a nebula is one such example. The Eskimo Nebula is one such example. In my time spent with the Moon, I've come across many such apparitions, faces, alphanumeric characters (the famous Lunar X is one), owls, pine trees, even a map of Australia. I've also had many such experiences with solar prominences, seeing dragons, lions and even giant bugs crawling over the solar surface!

Click image for larger version

Name:	2 Lunar 'X's - Copy (2).jpg
Views:	20
Size:	137.4 KB
ID:	231149 , Click image for larger version

Name:	Little Fat Owl - low res.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	71.8 KB
ID:	231150 , Click image for larger version

Name:	Maurolycus & Australia - CN.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	63.1 KB
ID:	231151 , Click image for larger version

Name:	2 Lions LR.JPG
Views:	19
Size:	140.5 KB
ID:	231152 , Click image for larger version

Name:	Teathered Dragon LR ii.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	207.0 KB
ID:	231153 , Click image for larger version

Name:	Solar Ant i.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	64.0 KB
ID:	231154

I too try to avoid making suggestions, but sometimes people experience a particularly striking "vision" and will exclaim at what they see. Can't stop that either, and it can make for a more lively and exciting experience for everyone.

Seeing colour through the eyepiece is a very important thing too. The biggest problem here firstly is that astronomy, particularly in amateur astronomy circles, is very male dominated. Thing with males is 1/3 are colour blind to some extent, from very mild to next to no colour perception. Add to this that colour perception also changes over time, as can visual acuity (as Glen mentioned leading many people down the photography side of things). This has seen many men be most adamant that humans "cannot see any colour through the eyepiece". Dig a little deeper and it turns out that the men making these declarations are colour blind, and at least at low levels of illumination that is seen through an eyepiece. But people do see colour, but the range of colour perception varies tremendously. I've saw pinks, greens and blues the first time I saw M42 through my 17.5" dob. Sadly though now 8 years later, I've lost the pinks and blues, and the pale green is also less vibrant, The Blue Planetary however is still quite striking for me.

One thing I try to do at outreach events is ask people if they can see any colour in the DSO's they are looking at, in particular M42, Eta Carina and the Jewel Box. Over the years I've been asking people, females have slightly better colour perception than males in this very niche visual experience (which astro is). One young lady also saw red in Eta Carina! But I also know of one fellow who is older than me who can also see this.

Ken, the topic of the book you are reading is something that I've just come to think about too, provoked entirely by this thread and the images I posted of early sketches. I've come to notice that there is a huge discrpancy between early sketches and early prints of sketches - these are two very different things, but sadly few people are aware that there is a distinction between the two, and prints of sketches are often passed on as being the "original". Early print technology did not allow for the same quality of image copy and reproduction, even more so of very low contrast images, such as astro sketches. That fabulous sketch of M51 done by Parsons I posted in an earlier post, there was no way possible for that piece to be reprinted to the same quality possible today. Instead, the original was redone in a print format of the time, and often NOT by the original artist, and this second author would have no experience of the image seen through the eyepiece, instead they reproduce what they "think" they see and understand. Below is the original sketch by William Parsons, and next to it is the reworked printed version. And this reproduction is one example of the better quality reproductions. Print technology is also still improving today for the reproduction of astro sketches alone.

Click image for larger version

Name:	William Parsons M51.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	64.3 KB
ID:	231155 , Click image for larger version

Name:	M51 sketch ii.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	43.8 KB
ID:	231156

It also needs to be kept in mind that not all early astronomers were gifted illustrators. Some would struggle with stick figures, but they did their best. And with the technical difficulties of the time with printing, the reproduced sketches bare even less resemblance to the actual object. But really this is now a different topic altogether from the original question posed in this thread, but I feel it needed some clarification.

Awesome thread, Glen! I've come to learn and understand a whole lot more about the history of my own niche in astro, sketching
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 23-07-2018, 11:09 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Secchi's early solar sketch's of the proms (wide slit observation) are still spectacular today!
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Secchi_vol2_plateH.JPG)
60.6 KB22 views
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 23-07-2018, 01:41 PM
75BC (Brendon)
Always in the dark.

75BC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northern Suburbs, Perth.
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepSkyBagger View Post
Brendon,

'M42 was looked at again and I was amazed to see colour clearly visible. The Huygenian region was green and the streamers north and south from it were very distinctly red.'

At this time, I firmly believed that colour was not visible in deep-sky objects, except blue and green planetary nebulae. Red was a definite no-no.

I still see green and red in M42 whenever I look at it with my current 12" reflector. Colour vision is a very subjective thing. Just because many people can't see colours in M42 doesn't mean that you or I *can't*.

I very rarely see colours in DSOs, but M42 is a stand-out exception for me.
Sounds similar to my experience Patrick.
I had viewed M42 a number of times from home before this, which made it more surprising because it was unexpected.
Very distinct colours especially the deep red / pink of the wings. And masses of green.
Sadly for me this is the only time I've seen it back in 2009ish with my 10" Dob.
But it was by far the darkest skies I've been under since then. A new moon and far from any light pollution.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 24-07-2018, 08:31 AM
DeepSkyBagger's Avatar
DeepSkyBagger (Patrick)
Astro Pom

DeepSkyBagger is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by 75BC View Post
Sadly for me this is the only time I've seen it back in 2009ish with my 10" Dob.
But it was by far the darkest skies I've been under since then. A new moon and far from any light pollution.
That was the last time you looked at M42? Or that was the last time you saw colour?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 24-07-2018, 04:36 PM
75BC (Brendon)
Always in the dark.

75BC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northern Suburbs, Perth.
Posts: 126
Patrick
That was the one and only time I've seen colour in M42.
Because I don't get the scope out often, if it's up, I'll always have a quick look.
I had a half decent pair of 10 x 50 binoculars when I was in my very early teens.
I would often look at the night sky with no idea what it all was, but Orion stood out as something special compared to everything else.
It's a reminder of where this hobby started for me.
Relating back to topic. This is one target I have studied a little to find what else is in there to see.
The Trapezium E component I've kinda seen maybe cause I know where it is suppose to be.
But I haven't put it in the bagged list yet because of the exact title of of this thread.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement