Help Needed In Finding Planetary Nebulas.

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

And there lies the greater satisfaction of imaging and processing over observing, in being able to confirm the existence of an object that visually isn't there.

Regards

Steven

Long may you enjoy imaging splodges in the Night Sky
I will just admire the images you and others put up , and continue to enjoy my Observing
Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

And to add to what Steven has said, even if you could see it what would you see....a greyish blob (maybe with a bit of green in it if it was bright enough). How inspiring!!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by astroron

Long may you enjoy imaging splodges in the night
I will just admire the images you and others put up , and continue to enjoy my observing
Cheers

Surely the old eyes are tiring a bit...can't see as well as you used to...things sometimes look a bit blurry...have to squint at high powers...that's where a GStar and its ilk come into their own. You can still be a visual observer, just using a different method to mark 1 eyeball and ocular

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

I love my Gstar.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

I love my Gstar.

So do I

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Surely the old eyes are tiring a bit...can't see as well as you used to...things sometimes look a bit blurry...have to squint at high powers...that's where a GStar and its ilk come into their own. You can still be a visual observer, just using a different method to mark 1 eyeball and ocular

My observing accuety has not changed,
When people come out to Cambroon and I show them certain very faint objects , they say how the Heck can you see that
The day that I find I cannot do Deep Sky Observing, I will give it all away and go and put my Rocking Chair on the veranda and think of all the good night's observing I have done in the past and fade off into the night, never to be heard of in astronomy circles again

[renormalised (Carl)]

You're lucky, Ron. I have astigmatism and I can't look through ep's for too long before I end up with a roaring headache and sore eyes. I may need glasses to look at a screen, but having a camera I can view objects with is great.

Mind you, my long sight is still as keen as ever

[astro744]

Originally Posted by astroron

Long may you enjoy imaging splodges in the Night Sky
I will just admire the images you and others put up , and continue to enjoy my Observing
Cheers

I'm with you on this one astroron (that makes at least two of us). I like to observe at the limits of visibility and therein lies the satisfaction of visual observing over imaging, in being able to detect an object that isn't always seen by those with keen eyes and often missed by many.

I go for the really faint galaxies that are there one night and not the next or the one after but then appear brighter than before the following night. The only real diffence being sky brightness but I am yet to get myself one of those sky quality meters to quantify my results. These same galaxies are the ones that appear to some as an obvious smudge when seen yet others will see nothing until their observing skills are honed.

I'm not interested in detail or structure in the object, simply seeing the smudge is satisfaction enough and then I move onto the next object (usually always a galaxy). If I want detail and structure I go to the Hubble web site and do a search.

I'm also with the opinion that large aperture is still better in city lights than small aperture. I once saw the Ghost of Jupiter nebula in a 16" f5 and it was better under city lights than I had ever seen it through my own 6" or 10" under similar skies.

[Suzy]

Originally Posted by astro744

I go for the really faint galaxies that are there one night and not the next or the one after but then appear brighter than before the following night.

These same galaxies are the ones that appear to some as an obvious smudge when seen yet others will see nothing until their observing skills are honed.

I'm not interested in detail or structure in the object, simply seeing the smudge is satisfaction enough and then I move onto the next object (usually always a galaxy). If I want detail and structure I go to the Hubble web site and do a search.

Well said I say!

On the flipside, I do appreciate the need for people with eye problems doing imaging. If I couldn't visually scope, I have to admit I would be going down the imaging road (sorry Ron!). I couldn't ever imagine not being able to capture the beauty of the night sky, and if my eyes fail me when I'm still fairly young (which many of us unfortunately suffer from), there is a choice thank goodness!

Having said that, I still believe visual observing is a first choice - as Astro 77 & Ron have said, it's all about the challenge, seeing things no one else can see, pushing your eyesight to its very limits.

That being said, we also own a debt of gratitude for the people that do image, so we the visual observers can see the detail that we don't get to.
I like to do my research on objects before I go looking for it, with the contribution of astro photography, it enables me to have an "awe" factor of what I'm seeing. Someone's got to do it(imaging).

But if there is nothing wrong with your eyes and you are not doing imaging for the purpose of contributing and there is no light pollution in your skies - I say what is wrong with you man!

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Be it with bare eyes, binoculars, a scope, through an eye piece or a camera.
I love Astronomy and will get out there and enjoy it any way I can.

[renormalised (Carl)]

I like visual observing too and the challenges it produces but there's nothing as satisfying as being able to take a good happy snap of the object you're looking at and finding things your eyes could never hope to see...especially the colours.

Suzy, next time Jeanette, Paul, Ron and the guys have another shindig up there way, take a drive up to them, say hello and see if Jeanette has the GStar setup on one of her scopes. I think you'll be impressed with what you see and I think it'll convince you to get one yourself

That is, if Ron doesn't superglue your head to the eyepiece of one of his dobs to prevent you from becoming a "heathen" imager!!!

[sjastro]

There are two types of astro-imagers.

There is imager who concentrates on objects that provides detail and structure, and produces a final image designed to maximize the wow factor. This is the most common form of imaging.

Then there is the astro-imager who is challenged by the extreme faintness of objects, where recording an image is much more important than any detail or structure.
This type of imager has a similiar objective with the visual observer struggling to identify faint galaxies in the field. The images are no more than faint smudges.

Here is an example. Until a few years ago the Carina Dwarf Galaxy would have been deemed near impossible to image using amateur equipment.

http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/carinadwf.html

Regards

Steven