mikeDnight

I've used all kinds of sketch pad and paper types over the years. I have used these two types over several years and tend to buy several at a time. The hard back black sketchbook I get from Hobby Craft and it has a slightly off white colour and a rough texture. The grey spiral bound sketchbook has a smoother, pure white paper, and is available from W.H. Smith. I have used black paper and white pencil but prefer to draw in negative using graphite pencils as I find it easier to get the desired effect. Then image the sketch and using the negative option in Editor, change the black on white to white on black. It looks great! Then there are the smaller sketchbooks which I use at the eyepiece. Drawing at the eyepiece can often result in something akin to road-kill, but as long as you understand what the scribbles and crossings out stand for all ends up well (usually) in the final sketch made indoors. So the gadgets I mostly use are graphite pencils, Putty erasers, paper blending stumps (Not spliffs!), and ear buds which I also use for softening edges and blending of soft albedo features on the planet's and nebulae. Now with the possibility of boring the pants off everyone, I've attached a few examples that may illustrate the effects of blending. Using black on white to produce white on black, and the use of watercolour pencils (dry)! The Moon: Planetary: Stars: Comets & Nebulae: The above drawn in negative, then using negative in Editor to change to white on black. Easier, after a little practice, than you might imagine! ☺️

Truly awesome Alan. Thanks for sharing it, it really makes observing it visually so much more fascinating. Your image is exactly how I see it visually through my 4" refractor! With a large dose of imagination of course!!

Yes they were darker or better defined. This may be due to the light mist that somehow steadied the view, or possibly because the brighter image of the 8" overpowered the subtle detail. I've heard someone recently say that large apertures can cause overexposure of the view because of their excessive light grasp, and in so doing, wash out the finest detail. This comment was in relation to fine lunar detail but it seems reasonable to assume the same could apply to the planet's. Saturn could be a case in point, especially when the rings are wide open, as the ultrafine detail gives the impression of the rings on a vynil record. I've seen this level of detail in scopes as small as 4" aperture. So there's a genuine reason why a 4 or 5 inch refractor may give better definition than an 8 or 10 inch reflector. Incidentally, the very best view of Saturn that I ever had, wasn't through a refractor, it was through an old 4.5" F11 Newtonian, which left the beautiful 4" Vixen Fluorite standing alongside it in the dust. Just when you think you've got everything under your belt in this game, something like this happens, and undermines everything you thought you knew as fact.

Fantastic image Paul!

Visual and imaging are two different things. Out of the two scopes you mention, the Newtonian would be the better visual scope, while the SCT would likely be the better planetary imaging scope. As a purely visual observer I'd choose neither. Although a 10" Newt' or Dob' will show an immense amount of detail, I find them cumbersome. It's worth noting that the excellent British lunar observer Harold Hill began his lunar studies using a 6.25" Newtonian. Harold became famous because of his superb lunar drawings, and over time he moved up in aperture to a 10" F10 Newtonian. Years passed by, then eventually Harold had opportunity to observe with his old 6.25" reflector that he'd used decades earlier. In side by side comparison, Harold commented that although "the image was dimmer in the 6.25""", he "could still see all the same detail visible in the 10" F10". It's food for thought! You could perhaps get the SCT for imaging, and also a lovely 6" F8 Newtonian with tracking eq5, or Dobsonian reflector for visual. Using a binoviewer will greatly improve the ease with which more intricate and subtle planetary detail can be see. Then again you could get a nice 4" to 6" apo refractor and just enjoy the ride! As a comparison you can examine the two sketches of Mars below, one made using an excellent 8" Newtonian reflector, and the other made using an excellent 4" Apo refractor. Although there are differences in the level of detail, they are not that different. Which do you prefer? And the scopes used: Another worthy consideration is the generally hit and miss seeing conditions. During the 2016 apparition of Mars the planet was extremely low, and many observers simply gave up hope of seeing anything worthwhile on its small, boiling disc. The atmospheric conditions didn't have a crippling effect on the 4" refractor, at least not to the same degree, and this allowed me to make 36 detailed disc drawings leading to a cylindrical grid map and a small globe being produced from the observations. Not bad for a small but excellent refractor! Of course it's not just Mars that responds well to observation in a small refractor.

I think I may be leaning toward the LZOS, not because its a triplet but because of the optical quality. It may take a little longer to cool, but it may very well punch well above its aperture class in terms of definition and image sharpness.

Either that, or John Merrick has taken up astronomy!

From 3/3/24. 4" refractor.

As far as I know, FLO has never shown up at the PAS.

That's a nice chunk off a nice mount! ☺

I spent 20 years observing under similar circumstances. It's so important to shield peripheral light from entering your eyes as you observe, so even though you are surrounded by annoying lights, using a blackout hood or blanket greatly improves your ability to make out fuzzies well. So whichever eyepiece you choose, you'll get the best out of it. ☺️

If you prefer the 35 Pan, the 31 Nagler makes a great door-stop! 😂

I sold my 31 Nag a couple of years ago, replacing it with a 35mm Panoptic. On my Genesis SDF the Pan was sharp to the edge, which the Nag certainly wasn't. Losing the half degree extra true field provided by the 31 Nagler was no real loss at all. I felt the 35 Panoptic to be better in every way. I sold my 35 Pan when selling my SDF. Now my widest field eyepiece is my Altair 30mm UFF and couldn't be happier!

Sometimes the choice of eyepiece can be made on the basis of sky darkness. With the 30mm (mine is the Altair Astro version), the sky background may be too bright to allow for high contrast views of some DSO's, so dropping down from 30mm to 24mm can greatly improve contrast and the ease with which more intricate detail can be seen. Years ago my friend Derek had an obsession about low power, wide field viewing. His telescope was a 102mm F6.5 Vixen ED - a remarkable telescope IMO! We were looking at the Orion Nebula, and I almost had to break his arm for him to allow me to put my 20mm Nagler into his scope. His reaction was explosive, but in a good way. The sky background in the 102 F6.5 and 20mm combination was dark, while the diamond dust stars and the nebula itself stood out as if in 3D. So basically you need both, or even better the entire set. It's only money!

They really do look much better decloaked Dave. But "penniless"? That had me chuckling!

If you're anything like me John, making notes won't help. I can never remember all the various password s we all need these days, so for a long time I'd rely on one of my son's to remember them. Getting fed up of me continually asking for this or that password, they decided to buy me a book to keep them in. Now I'm continually asking "Have you any idea where I've put my book"?

I had another chance at observing Comet 12P/Pons-Brooks this evening, this time with the 100mm Tak instead of the 72ED. It was bright despite being relatively low in the north west. I first swept the sky using a 30mm UFF which was pleasurable in itself, but then when the comet came into the field, it really gave me a momentary thrill. After making a rough sketch of the field as seen in the 30mm I increased the power, darkening the sky background and increasing the contrast, by swapping to a 17.5mm Morpheus. Again I made a sketch of the comet which showed a hint of a stellar nucleus using averted vision, and a large coma with short fan tail. There was a star close to the comet which may have been responsible for causing a contrast effect that led me to believe there was a hard edge to edge of the fan tail, causing the tail to look longer and straight on one side. The third sketch I made of the comet this evening was with a SvBony 3-8 zoom and 4mm Tak TOE. The Zoom at every focal length gave a more pleasing view, most likely because of it's wider true field throughout its range, so the TOE was retired for the night. at every fl the zoom gave a pleasing view, although the observation was mainly done using it at 8mm =100X.

None!

Doesn't allow connection. Looking on the bright side I can't spend anything if I can't access it.

Sunday and still getting this.

Still can't access the site this morning! Technology is rubbish!!!

Here's one that caught my eye. At F11 it is still not long by classical standards. And easy to use too! Just point fat end skyward and look through thin end. Simple!!

I'm sure you're doing yourself an injustice John! 🙂

The same thing has happened to me several times over the last week, so youre not alone.