photos v reality

[klomoli]

As beginners we always wonder what will we be able to see through a scope and as beginners we are (most of us I would think) often if not always some what disapointed with the outcome once the object is on site!

Although after readings on forums warning us that, what we will see in the telescope itself, will never be to the same quality than on photos taken with that very same telescope.

But even been prepared, we have very high expectations and still hope of a truly amazing site.

So wouldn't it be great to find photos that give a better and truer image of what is been expected ?

I know that looking at drawings/ stektches give a better idea but....

Are they sites that do this out there in a far far....

[nicnac]

i have no doubt some of the imagers here will have a single short exposure frame in their processing box, maybe one can post a few.

[Rottweiler]

I dont think the eye can ever match a sensor. They just didnt evolve for astronomy use, the minimum sensitivity for a camera is far below your eye. You only have to hook a cheap webcam up to see better than your eyes can. This is pretty much what drove me to image instead of visually observe. Even so I still eat lots of carrots

[JamesM]

Klomoli, I think you have hit on an important point there. When I first started out in astronomy, I really wanted to know what difference aperture makes in resolving a viewed object. I knew that a 10" scope would show a better view than say a 6" scope but how much better, was it worth the extra cost etc. One method I thought would be useful would be to use some of the eyepiece simulators that are out there but I quickly realised that in the main, they were not very reliable. So I literally spent a year (...I know this sounds sad) looking through as much kit as possible, trying to construct my own consensus of what the differences would be between the all the sizes of different kit out there and the detail they revealed. It would have been so much easier to have been able to look at 'realistic pictures' rather than those used by manufacturers and or even some astro magazines, who to this day persist in using astrophotography to illustrate their monthly viewing guides.

My personal view as to the reason why you are unlikely to, "...find photos that give a better and truer image" of what you expect to see is because if you did, you might not buy the kit. It's for this reason that I personally dislike the notion of a 'beginners' scope - there is no such thing. There exists two types of scopes, one that shows you detail and the other that doesn't and the dividing line is aperture.

James

[26Left]

"Turn Left At Orion" is a good book that gives realistic sketches of what you can expect to actually see through an eyepiece. There was a letter published in Sky At Night magazine a few months ago complaining about exactly your point. To be fair, I have noticed that they have been printing more realistic images in their sky guide recently.

Yes, its tempting to chase after greater aperture. But personally, I use my 5 inch refactor much more than my 10 inch reflector. More comfortable, more managable, better contrast...

[mark7331]

I tend to agree with Rottwieller (and not just because my dog is one and not necessarily about the carrots). Some of the subs I take when framing my targets are quite short and look a bit like the view through the eyepiece but even so they contain much more detail. M51 appears as a grey smudge with two brighter areas through the eyepiece but through even a short CCD exposure I can see structure etc.

I agree with James though, there is no "beginner" scope and I don't know if I agree about beginners being disappointed. I setup my scopes at a family barbecue a couple of weeks ago. I setup the full imaging rig and had about 10 people who'd never looked through a scope lined up to see Saturn. They all said "Wow!" and "Amazing", shortly followed by "Can I have another look" and this was through my guiding scope.

There are many amazing, awesome sights to see. The moon is an amazing sight and overlooked sometimes.

EDIT: and as 26 says - I use my 8" newt more than my 12" newt.

Mark

[Revs]

This link was posted in a recent thread. I thought is was accurate..

the Budget Astronomer - What can you see?

Hope that helps

[klomoli]

My personal view as to the reason why you are unlikely to, "...find photos that give a better and truer image" of what you expect to see is because if you did, you might not buy the kit.

James

I do also believe that a lot of it is down to commercial reasons.

I don't know if I agree about beginners being disappointed. I setup my scopes at a family barbecue a couple of weeks ago. I setup the full imaging rig and had about 10 people who'd never looked through a scope lined up to see Saturn. They all said "Wow!" and "Amazing", shortly followed by "Can I have another look" and this was through my guiding scope.

Mark

What I think you forget to point out is that family and friends have not spent lots of time on the net researching, learning, and saliving at the prospect of buying their first scope! And have therefore not been exposed to the market of scopes and wonders . How many friends did'nt even know that we could see other galaxies with the scope and let alone the fact that we lived in a galaxy of our own!

klomoli

[Macavity]

Hope that helps

I think it's pretty accurate too.

I think, if you have a family (or otherwise cynical. LOL) audience, you MIGHT consider "video astronomy". Without some of the "immediacy" (whatever), it seems a great way to SHARE the experience. And provide passable, real-time, images of DSOs.

[ollypenrice]

This is surprisingly hard to do because the camera and the eye respond so differently to light. I have tried to duplicate the view of M42 in our 20 inch Dob using a 26mm Nagler eyepiece. In the image the stars look large and blobby, in the scope they look tiny and far brighter. Trying to get the nebula to look as it does is hard because the camera pulls out the faint stuff so well. Anyway this is a very rough estimate at least as far as the nebulosity goes. At the EP M43 is fainter than this but the 'wings' of M42 are brighter.

Olly

The camera does better on nebulosity and colour, obviously, but not on pinpoint stars: http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Nebulae-and-clusters/M42CCBOV2010/1100345185_HHd4m-X3.jpg

[Shibby]

As you said, sketches are your best bet, but here's an image of the ring nebula. I've modified a single sub to show roughly a similar view to that which I saw through the eyepiece before attaching the camera:

I have desaturated the image because our eyes are not very good at picking up colour in low light conditions.

Here's (a crop) of the original sub:

[Shibby]

Olly, I would *love* to see M42 like that!!

[klomoli]

The camera does better on nebulosity and colour, obviously, but not on pinpoint stars: http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Nebulae-and-clusters/M42CCBOV2010/1100345185_HHd4m-X3.jpg

In a few years, I guess, they will be able to make some kind of contact lens that has a special plugin to gives us the extra everything we're missing to have the view of the Marvelous photo of the above link from Olly.

[RikM]

Here is a sub of m13 that I tweaked to try and show how it looked through a 10" dob at SGL6. Not very successful as as Olly says, the individual stars are bigger and fainter. In the eyepiece the whole cluster just short of shimmered, it was quite beautiful. I did this for a step-by-step sketching guide for the CAS newsletter.

[AstroLuke]

I'd wish someone made devices like contact lenses, that you'd put on and your eyes would be better of viewing astronomical objects

[DaBozUK]

I wholeheartedly agree with the point the OP is making. I found the lack of guides to what you can see with different size scopes to be off putting to the hobby. Fortunately, my wife bought me a telescope for birthday and now I can see for myself, but otherwise, I would never have got into this hobby.

Thanks to those who do publish pictures or drawings, but it would be really helpful if standard information could be included, such as scope, eyepiece, barlow and magnification in camera.

Having had a go at trying to photo the moon last night with my iphone and point and shoot camera, it's damn hard getting anything NEAR what I see with my eye, so I appreciate the difficulty.

Drawings I think are perhaps the answer then.

[MikeWilson]

This link was posted in a recent thread. I thought is was accurate..

the Budget Astronomer - What can you see?

Hope that helps

Helpful and seems pretty accurate.

On more thing - the smaller targets (M57, planets) look better through longer focal length. I browsed the examples using my iPhone and held at arms length these demo images look similar to how they look at the eyepiece of a Mak127 (~1200mm focal length). Smaller and brighter at lower lengths.

Mike

[klomoli]

Would anyone have a picture of M51 to share?

[Pete Presland]

this is a very basic photo by a person with very modest ability

if i remember correctly its a single 30 second sub,no processing or manipulation at all.

but to be honest its still better than i could see on the night i took it.

ps i still had a massive smile when i saw it though,you know what they say from "small acorns grow mighty oaks,or in my case hopefully M51's"

[Sparrow]

I've tried to give an impression of what M51 might look like through an 8" scope - I might be off the mark a bit and it may actually show more detail than is realistic but compared to the 2nd image which is one I did recently I think it gives an idea of viewing expectations compared to imaging expectations. This is why I got into the astro photography as I enjot the "hidden" detail.

[RikM]

I've tried to give an impression of what M51 might look like through an 8" scope - I might be off the mark a bit and it may actually show more detail than is realistic but compared to the 2nd image which is one I did recently I think it gives an idea of viewing expectations compared to imaging expectations. This is why I got into the astro photography as I enjot the "hidden" detail.

That's a pretty good impression, but as you say, still a bit more spiral detail than I have seen with an 8" even at a reasonably dark site. From home I just get the two cores and a hint of a brighter smudge encompassing the two. I can only just make out which is the larger smudge (M51).

[Macavity]

In respectful semi-levity: MAK150 + 0.5X field reducer --> IMAGE

Watec N120+ 128 frames @ 1/50sec, 70% gain, gamma set "Hi".

Approx. 5 seconds of real time. Plenty of "gain" still left too...

[vyeshaun]

This may seem like a silly question. But are there any "nearer" DSO's that are perhaps more than just smudges when viewing through a scope? I was always under the impression that Orions great nebula and andromeda would be pretty detailed through a scope and I am so keen to catch a glimpse.

[klomoli]

First of all thank you all for sharing these pickies!

Well I guess it is a relief, meaning that what I see with my skope, while looking up at M51 is pretty much what I should expect to see.

I must admet that I did hope for a better outcome with those better scopes and Eps.

Sparrow's pictures of M51

Because if I'm honnest I would give the left picky (even though there is still a little spiral detail) (and based on the fact that the right picky would be based on 100 out of 100) a 10/100. Such a huge difference !

You see this kind of proves my point, as a newby I have so much too learn on the expectation side of things!

I think i'm going to look into an eagle's eye transplant, that should do the trick

[Sparrow]

Don't get me wrong Klomoli - I love the astro imaging because of what it can reveal that the eye through the scope can't see - BUT - I have to say that there is a real thrill when you actually see a DSO through the eyepiece and know that you are looking directly at light that set off thousands or even millions of years ago. You are looking straight in to history:) - I rarely do visual work, but I did take the time to look at Andromeda through the scope last Autumn and was very chuffed indeed

If you know what to expect and appreciate it for what it is, then the enjoyment quickly returns.

Best wishes

John