Does anyone else distinguish between 'seeing' and 'detecting'?

[Stonius (Markus)]

For me, they're very different experiences.


If I look in the eyepiece and the object is immediately obvious, I feel like I've *seen it.


But if I wouldn't have known it was there with out first knowing to look for it; or if it is something that requires long minutes of work with averted vision to *just make out, I feel like I've managed to *detect it, but it doesn't really feel the same as *seeing it.


Eg, you might *see the core of a Galaxy and with effort, *detect its arms.


That sort of thing.


Not saying one is superior to the others, just that they are different experiences to me.


Anyone else?


Markus

[astro744]

Absolutely! I mostly enjoy looking at objects on the limits of detection. Sometimes I can detect a particular object one night but not the other and I put it down to sky quality but there may be many other factors, (will get SQM one day).

It’s fun testing different eyepieces this way too, (must be same focal length) for light throughput and contrast (in any given telescope).

Sometimes even averted vision is not enough to detect the target and you need to bump or jiggle the telescope. The eye somehow sees a lag in the movement of the target and it then stands out momentarily.

Edit:
Found this interesting link (Scroll down); https://www.bbastrodesigns.com/NewtDesigner.html#visual

[The_bluester (Paul)]

I do discern a difference between the two yes. And I do enjoy both. Seeing for me is something where with at least some effort, detail can be made out, and detecting is more of the "Well there is SOMETHING there" type of object.

Funny enough I was expecting a slightly different question which relates to how I have seen some people observe versus others. I have noticed people at a star party, snapping around the sky and picking off a list of objects and as soon as they have spotted it, on to the next versus others (Like me) who will hunt for and spend some time looking at individual objects and trying to pick out detail.

Sort of like one person trying out the Messier challenge and "Getting" the full list that can be observed in one night, versus me spending half an hour gazing at M104 trying to see more in the dust lane.

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by The_bluester

I do discern a difference between the two yes. And I do enjoy both. Seeing for me is something where with at least some effort, detail can be made out, and detecting is more of the "Well there is SOMETHING there" type of object.

Funny enough I was expecting a slightly different question which relates to how I have seen some people observe versus others. I have noticed people at a star party, snapping around the sky and picking off a list of objects and as soon as they have spotted it, on to the next versus others (Like me) who will hunt for and spend some time looking at individual objects and trying to pick out detail.

Sort of like one person trying out the Messier challenge and "Getting" the full list that can be observed in one night, versus me spending half an hour gazing at M104 trying to see more in the dust lane.

Yes, and there's fun to be had in both. I like just staring at dusty swirls of gas - I mean they're just beautiful. Watching the weather change on Jupiter, or the thousands of stars swirling in a globular cluster are amazing, but it's more about my capacity for wonder. It's astro-tourism, which come to think about it is mostly what outreach focuses on - which maybe gives a slightly distorted impression of the hobby.



But when I test myself with faint / small objects it's about my capacity for visual acuity under the given conditions, as well as the abilities of the equipment and how well I have set it up. I think there's also a bit of the naturalist in me that wants to 'collect the specimens', if that makes sense. On that level, I can understand the people who want to 'score' all the Messiers in a single night, same as I can understand someone spending hours trying to 'get the highest possible detection score' on the details of a single object. I think maybe it comes from the same completionist impulse.