What's your thinking on this?

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 19 Dec 2006 21:00:49
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: What's your thinking on this?

In the ongoing thread which addresses the observation of M1 under light
polluted skies, one poster points out that it is difficult visually but
easy photographically.

I don't consider the capturing of an object with a camera (which CHEATS the
eye) as a valid observation of said object.

--
Martin R. Howell
Worldwide Amateur Astronomers

Date: 20 Dec 2006 05:08:12
From: Mike
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:rt9tnnjb9gdk.1j8gos9npn7dn$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> In the ongoing thread which addresses the observation of M1 under light
> polluted skies, one poster points out that it is difficult visually but
> easy photographically.
>
> I don't consider the capturing of an object with a camera (which CHEATS
> the
> eye) as a valid observation of said object.
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
> Worldwide Amateur Astronomers

Robert Gendler does it all the time and achieves astounding results

Date: 20 Dec 2006 05:07:15
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:00:49 -0800, "Martin R. Howell"
<martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote:

>In the ongoing thread which addresses the observation of M1 under light
>polluted skies, one poster points out that it is difficult visually but
>easy photographically.
>
>I don't consider the capturing of an object with a camera (which CHEATS the
>eye) as a valid observation of said object.

It's as valid as any other method. Of course, it makes no sense to use a
camera if your goal is a visual observation (nor your eyes if the goal
is an image).

In any case, I didn't take Nytecam's comments to mean that the OP should
go out with a camera instead of using his eyes; rather, he was pointing
out (accurately IMO) that this object is on the boundary between being a
visual and a photographic target under less than ideal skies.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 20 Dec 2006 20:04:49
From: Ioannis
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:rt9tnnjb9gdk.1j8gos9npn7dn$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>
> In the ongoing thread which addresses the observation of M1 under light
> polluted skies, one poster points out that it is difficult visually but
> easy photographically.
>
> I don't consider the capturing of an object with a camera (which CHEATS the
> eye) as a valid observation of said object.

I agree too, but I guess opinions differ on this subject. I suspect many of
the great astrophotographers who hang around alt.binaries.pictures.astro may
strongly disagree.

For me, there's no substitute for "eyeing" the object directly. No matter how
small the apperture, I consider a direct view of a DSO to be data acquired
directly through the five senses, thus invaluable.

I had seen detailed pics of M1 for example, at least 25 years ago, before I
had any equipment. Meant little to me, until I saw M1 with my own eyes.

A Hubble pic may be impressive, but for me it is nowhere as impressive as the
view through moderate to serious equipment.

Also, although extended objects such as DSOs typically look better through
astrophotography, I don't think this applies to single stars. Single stars
look the best directly. Even the best photos tend to saturate the images of
stars, seriously altering their appearance and cluttering the pic. I think no
photo can capture the divine beauty of single stars as well as the eye does,
in any equipment, including the unaided eye.

Of course, I am not a professional, so I am not extracting any valuable data
from high quality pics, thus my choice.

> --
> Martin R. Howell
> Worldwide Amateur Astronomers
--
Ioannis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/

Date: 20 Dec 2006 12:55:06
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

Martin R. Howell wrote:
> In the ongoing thread which addresses the observation of M1 under light
> polluted skies, one poster points out that it is difficult visually but
> easy photographically.
>
> I don't consider the capturing of an object with a camera (which CHEATS the
> eye) as a valid observation of said object.

Taken literally, your statement invalidates /all/ astrophotography. The
Hubble Deep Field cheats the eye!?

I want to state emphatically that I understand that visual observation
of faint deep-sky objects is an absolutely valid and very enjoyable
facet of this hobby for many people. Some of the drawings thus produced
after hours (or years) of observation with averted vision are stunning.

I spent some years in the Middle East as a diplomat for the State
Department. In the course my duties during those years I was obligated
to visit innumerable ancient ruins. "Moses stopped for lunch here."
"Jesus slept here..." Once I got myself in trouble when a ranking
foreign official asked me what I thought of a particular ruin that was
supposed to impress me deeply. I knew what I was supposed to say; I had
my lines memorized. But I replied: "It looks pretty much like the last
pile of rocks we saw." Damned lucky I didn't start a war.*

My point is that it didn't take long for me to get bored with looking
at faint fuzzies. If that's all there was I would be a
Solar-system-only observer or, perhaps, a stamp collector. Take away
the Trapezium and M42 doesn't look much different from M31 to me.
Photographically? Wow -- they're not the same at all! Can the M45
nebulosity be seen through a telescope? (I really don't know.)

I have seen M1 under Maryland skies with a friend's 14". And I've seen
it from a remote part of West Texas through another 14". Quite a
difference, but I don't believe that I can "see" M1 with /any/ widely
affordable amateur telescope. It takes a camera to reveal M1 -- for
/my/ eyes.

Davoud

*Exception: the Pyramids. Now /those/ are impressive piles of rocks!
For four years I lived in a Cairo penthouse with a view of the
Pyramids. I never tired of looking at them, especially with the sun low
behind them.

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Date: 20 Dec 2006 13:04:54
From: W. H. Greer
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

Davoud asked:

>Can the M45
>nebulosity be seen through a telescope? (I really don't know.)

Absolutely, positively, without the slightest doubt -- YES!! But
sadly, it appears that few of today's observers have sufficiently dark
skies.
--
Bill
Celestial Journeys
http://cejour.blogspot.com

Date: 20 Dec 2006 22:21:58
From: Ioannis
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

"W. H. Greer" <sendnomail@tome.net > wrote in message
news:nq5jo21pmndrt96c2m6prjdbqa7f1o63m8@4ax.com...
>
> Davoud asked:
>
> >Can the M45
> >nebulosity be seen through a telescope? (I really don't know.)
>
> Absolutely, positively, without the slightest doubt -- YES!! But
> sadly, it appears that few of today's observers have sufficiently dark
> skies.

Second that. On very dark 6.5+ skies it's quite visible as a very faint patch
around Merope and Alcyone with my 20x100.

The first time I saw it, I thought the bino eyepieces were dirty from my eye
accidentally coming to contact with them and leaving a residue, which gave the
cluster a peculiar foggy appearance.

Turns out that was the nebulosity.

> --
> Bill
> Celestial Journeys
> http://cejour.blogspot.com
--
Ioannis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/

Date: 20 Dec 2006 09:26:30
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

Date: 20 Dec 2006 15:58:25
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

Date: 20 Dec 2006 10:22:19
From: Scott Miller
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

Date: 20 Dec 2006 06:20:42
From: W. H. Greer
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

"Martin R. Howell" wrote:
>
>In the ongoing thread which addresses the observation of M1 under light
>polluted skies, one poster points out that it is difficult visually but
>easy photographically.

That doesn't sound all that different from saying: It's difficult
visually under a light polluted sky; but easy visually under a dark
sky.

>I don't consider the capturing of an object with a camera (which CHEATS the
>eye) as a valid observation of said object.

In this day and age, some may consider it cheating to visually observe
under a dark sky.

We've all seen far worse on saa! At least no one mentioned the
paralactic views of M1 as seen from a Copernican model of the
heliocentric Earth; thus proving once and for all the inferiority of
the RA/Dec view system. (Sorry, Minnie Me temporarily gained control
of my fingers . . . I'm OK now . . . really I am . . . at least, I
think I must be . . .)
--
Bill
Celestial Journeys
http://cejour.blogspot.com

Date: 20 Dec 2006 04:25:39
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

Hi:

OK...you're entitled to your opinion...but...

What exactly do you mean by "cheats the eye"?

Martin R. Howell wrote:
> In the ongoing thread which addresses the observation of M1 under light
> polluted skies, one poster points out that it is difficult visually but
> easy photographically.
>
> I don't consider the capturing of an object with a camera (which CHEATS the
> eye) as a valid observation of said object.
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
> Worldwide Amateur Astronomers

Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:29:24
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

AustinMN wrote:
> Ioannis wrote:
> <snip>
> > Also, although extended objects such as DSOs typically look better through
> > astrophotography, I don't think this applies to single stars. Single stars
> > look the best directly. Even the best photos tend to saturate the images of
> > stars, seriously altering their appearance and cluttering the pic. I think no
> > photo can capture the divine beauty of single stars as well as the eye does,
> > in any equipment, including the unaided eye.
>
> To prove your point, I've never seen a photographic image that can come
> close to a well-resolved view of a globular cluster. Photographic
> stars turn into blobs and run together in a way that does not happen
> visually.
>

Then I guess you've seen very few and bad samples. The eye is a very
poor detector, resolution wise.

Here's an example:

http://faculty.rmwc.edu/tmichalik/glob2.htm

Andrea T.

Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:25:29
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

I've seen a many color photos of M42 and some of them are not to bad, if you
are looking for the color. I have spent a many hours looking at M42 via my
scopes and to me it's an awesome sight and I enjoy eatching the play of
light bewteen the stars and the dust.

--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.

The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

<atasselli@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166660963.937235.203880@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> AustinMN wrote:
>> Ioannis wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Also, although extended objects such as DSOs typically look better
>> > through
>> > astrophotography, I don't think this applies to single stars. Single
>> > stars
>> > look the best directly. Even the best photos tend to saturate the
>> > images of
>> > stars, seriously altering their appearance and cluttering the pic. I
>> > think no
>> > photo can capture the divine beauty of single stars as well as the eye
>> > does,
>> > in any equipment, including the unaided eye.
>>
>> To prove your point, I've never seen a photographic image that can come
>> close to a well-resolved view of a globular cluster. Photographic
>> stars turn into blobs and run together in a way that does not happen
>> visually.
>>
>
> Then I guess you've seen very few and bad samples. The eye is a very
> poor detector, resolution wise.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> http://faculty.rmwc.edu/tmichalik/glob2.htm
>
> Andrea T.
>

Date: 20 Dec 2006 13:18:15
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

Ioannis wrote:
<snip >
> Also, although extended objects such as DSOs typically look better through
> astrophotography, I don't think this applies to single stars. Single stars
> look the best directly. Even the best photos tend to saturate the images of
> stars, seriously altering their appearance and cluttering the pic. I think no
> photo can capture the divine beauty of single stars as well as the eye does,
> in any equipment, including the unaided eye.

To prove your point, I've never seen a photographic image that can come
close to a well-resolved view of a globular cluster. Photographic
stars turn into blobs and run together in a way that does not happen
visually.

Austin

Date: 20 Dec 2006 12:23:39
From:
Subject: Re: What's your thinking on this?

Scott Miller wrote:
> No, I think that any tool that allows your eye to see an astronomical
> object, directly or indirectly, makes seeing the object an observation.

Great! Then I can tell people that I've seen 25th magnitude galaxies,
which I have, in photographs.