Observing vs Imaging

[DSO]

Originally Posted by thunderchildobs

Imaging.

It is so easy and comfortable.

The scope is outside in the cold and dew taking pictures for my super nova search, while I check the images in my warm, dry white light friendly bedroom watching Star Trek and reading IIS threads.

Imaged 210 galaxies in 5 hours last night.



Brendan

To my way of thinking that is most of the magic of astronomy lost. But each to their own.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

I'm into imaging at the moment, but know that the visual bug will strike again soon.

I have two scopes set up on my G11 at the moment. C8 with DSLR attached, so that's out for visual. Megrez 80 with autoguider camera attached, so that's out for visual too.

I now plan to get a set of Losmandy side-by-side plates so that I can fit a third scope - the Tak 60, so at least I can see where I'm pointing the cameras (at higher mag than the finder) and can at least have a good look at what I'm imaging when I'm doing that. May not be a 12" view, but you can only carry so much weight.

Best of both worlds...

[Ric]

I voted imager but I suppose it's about 80/20. I like to start off and finish up with some visual observing and have a few hours imaging in between.

Cheers

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by thunderchildobs

Imaged 210 galaxies in 5 hours last night.

But *saw* none....

[AstralTraveller (David)]

I've always been a visual observer. I think there is something special about seeing the actual photons that left object. It is more immediate and 'real' than viewing an image. I also used to enjoy the pleasure of the hunt - tracking down that mag 12 galaxy by starhopping - though at the moment I'm using a goto. I'll soon have a 25cm dobs going so I may get back into hunting the faint fuzzies.

When I started the equipment for photography was expensive, difficult to use and you were limited to film. Now it is relatively easy to get started and I have the equipment to dip my toe into imaging, so I'm thinking of trying.

[thunderchildobs]

Originally Posted by Starkler

Isnt that a bit like buying fish from a fish market and then saying you enjoyed the fishing trip?

For me a big part of the observing experience is about being out under the stars

I think your example is wrong. I am not hiring a fisherman to catch a fish and do the work for me and then claim the fish as my own. I do everything myself.

It is more like going on a fishing trip and having a choice of either a 3m tinnie or a 30m yacht. I have never been fishing, but I am sure I'll take the yacht as a more comfortable experience.

Originally Posted by Satchmo

But *saw* none....

If you had my skies and visually looking at mag 11 - 15 galaxies you to would "see" none. The CCD lets me see objects that are well beyond my visual capabilites.

Brendan

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by thunderchildobs

It is more like going on a fishing trip and having a choice of either a 3m tinnie or a 30m yacht. I have never been fishing, but I am sure I'll take the yacht as a more comfortable experience

I don't think thats quite correct. Choosing the yacht in your analogy is perhaps the equivelent of never leaving the dock, but watching a sailing trip after it hapenned on a video screen.

[DaveGee (Dave Gault)]

I'm a little uncomfortable with this thread/poll...thing.

IMHO It's like we are trying to separate ourselves into "camps".... based on whether one uses their own eyes or uses other means to observe.

Pretty soon there'll be a PushTO "V" GOTO debate... sheish.... This is probably the reason I have not voted .

Look!... there are visual observers, video observers, webcam observers, DSLR observers, CCD observers and..... The key word is "Observers". We observe the sky. Some take measurements, some make records of a particular region of the sky at a particular moment, some chase the most difficult or the faintest, or the coolest. Some simply wish to share their sky experience with others. The choice of photon collector is simply governed by the best method to achieve the desired result.

For me, I'm a video observer. I can utilise my camera's sensitivity and 25 frames per second attributes to determine when an occultation occurs, making it possible to give an event time to an accuracy of +/- 0.02 seconds. This can't be done visually which at best can only be relied on to +/- 0.1 seconds, and that is for a VERY experienced observer in prime conditions. This does NOT mean that visual observations of occultations is inferior and therefore are worth less than a video observation. The fact is ALL observations of an occultation event are valuable.

The point is that the choice of photon collector has nothing to do with declaration that one is an observer, or not.

thew, I feel now...

[mabsj2]

i an observer but i want to start imaging soon.

[Babalyon 5]

Im with DaveGee. This is an unnecessary pol in IMHO! I do and enjoy both, as well as help out at star parties with my society showing the sky to the mudbloods(non-astronomical type people)! LOL!
As to goto or pushto, sheesh!!!

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by DaveGee

Look!... there are visual observers, video observers, webcam observers, DSLR observers, CCD observers and..... The key word is "Observers". We observe the sky.

I would call that a scientific approach to the issue. I would still however divide visual observing from most other forms of `data colection' as you are intercepting original photons and comprehending them in real time. Put even a video screen in between and that feeling of direct connection with the object can be lost. This doesn't mean visual observing superior but at a philisophical and spititual level , in the moment, it can be incredibly compelling.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Dave, Dave, Dave

Calm down. There has been no bloodshed, we haven't even resorted to name calling. This thread has generated less heat than some 'Nagler vs Pentax' or 'Meade vs Celestron' debates, and certainly less than the 'Laser Ban' threads. There has been some valid points made in support of both preferences, that's all.

The only camps we need to divide into is on the observing field where imagers, necessarily, have illuminated screens and visual observers rightfully want to preserve their dark adaption. This is what has been happening at Bargo recently. Last Saturday one of the imagers (sorry I've forgotten your name) visited us several times while his camera and autoguider were doing there stuff and had a look through my scope. In hindsight, since he had experienced my 'live' photons I should have hit him for a copy of his images to look at on cloudy nights.

Sorry, but I think your comparison regarding the best method to observe grazes or occultations is flawed. Visual observing is about fun not science, and I believe the same is true of most (all?) amateur imaging. On the other hand asteroid occultations, lunar occultations, variable star observing, asteroid photometry, etc, are all forays into science and so one should aspire to the best possible equipment and technique. For that reason I would like to emulate your set up (but give me a year or two at least).

I'm glad you still accept the value of us imprecise visual observers and I hope to meet you on some dark, lonely country road somewhere between Goulburn and Collector on 12 June.

cheers, clear skies and clean, sharp light curves.
Dave

[DaveGee (Dave Gault)]

Originally Posted by Satchmo

.... but at a philisophical and spititual level , in the moment, it can be incredibly compelling.

Agreed! Just gaze upon Saturn (for example) and feel the rush.

But that's not my point. We are observing if gazing through the optics or "imaging" through the optics, perhaps intending to make an animation to show movement that can't be fully appreciated any other way.

[DaveGee (Dave Gault)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Dave, Dave, Dave, Calm down.

I'm cool! In fact if I was any cooler, I'd need a freezer suit.

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

and I hope to meet you on some dark, lonely country road somewhere between Goulburn and Collector on 12 June.

Sure thing! And that's an open invitation to all observers, regardless of their choice of photon collector. Why? Why, there is to be a lunar graze of chi Virginis on the 12th June and the place to be is by the side of a dark and lonely road between Goulburn and Collector, about 10:21UT (8:21pm) me thinks....

A 67% illuminated moon grazing past mag. 4 star, 17.2 degrees from the cusp. Surely a match made in heaven. You'd be mad to miss it!

[JimmyH155]

I've done imaging on a small scale with my entry level Meade DSI. I got some good shots of M42, Eta, and Moon. But when I came to process them...Wow, I had to learn a new language. Convolution, grey scales, masking, red, green, blue, gamma, histogram etc., etc. Then found out I would need about $1500 just to get a monitor and a printer to print what I saw on the screen, I thought Aha back to visual With my lovely LB 12" there was no competition. So.... if you want a great 8" SCT all set to go either way, see my ad in telescope section
Photons rule OK!!

[astroAJ]

I'm to big a noob to use a camera

[overlord (Charles)]

Observing.

And I'll tell you why....

Astronomy is not a hobby, it is a hunt. My 8" dob is my elephant rifle. when i wheel it out at night, i want to HUNT down objects. With the ravenous bloodlust of a nineteenth century British Imperialist looking for diamonds up the Congo, i devour the star atlas, zero in on the feeding ground of my object with my finderscope, and then, to prevent its escape, I trap the sucker with the ALL-ENCOMPASSING erfle wide-view, before moving up to 100x for the kill.

I then devour it, absorbing the details, my eyes drinking the entirity of its photonic lifeblood, until, my prey drained and my apetite satisfied, I move on to other conquests.

THAT, is what astronomy is all about.

I think everyone will agree that imaging is ONLY for very serious people with big-ego telescopes who are simply too good for us lowly mortals with cheep dobs.

Thanks.

[DistroMan (Trevor)]

I'll admit to being an observer,but you missed one option on the poll.

Imager
Observer
Observer married to an Imager.

[Spanrz (Brett)]

My view.

Always was and still am, an Observer.
However, some photo shots of certain items, just show these items in all their glory.

The key element here, is our eyes don't work like camera's in the sense to capture light and store it for a short period, like the camera does on a long exposure.
Our eye's don't capture the Milky Way in it's full glory (etc).

If our eyes did "long exposure" and captured the light, the poll would teeter a lot more, to the observing.

[DaveO (David)]

I had to vote "imager", even though the only reason for doing so these days is to take photometric measurements. I only dabble in "pretty pictures". But there was no other options Matt!