Why do you prefer Observational Astronomy over Astrophotography?

[sabana]

Sir Patrick Moore is an avid observer who has never bothered with astrophotography.

There is so much to learn about the universe that photography would only get in the way he says.

I see his point. It is so vast a subject that whilst yes its nice to think you've captured something precious for your album. But because good viewing nights are so limited you want to make the most of them. And observe as much as you can while you can. Photography is very time consuming in Astronomy.

Has anyone else just chosen the observational route? And I'd be interested to know if you started off dabbling in astrophotography but decided to just concentrate on observing.

Clear skies.

[Moonshane]

Hi Sabana

I am only a visual observer. Ironically, I come from a background of a keen amateur wildlife photographer but imaging space never grabbed me. I took some half decent moon shots when I was starting out in astronomy but to be hnest the over-riding feeling I got was that the camera was hogging the scope so I stopped.

For me it's largely about time and cost too. Although I have some good kit, this was purchase when I earned a lot more than I do now and also I have a relatively young family so cannot (and don't want to) spend large amounts of time away from them processing.

However, the biggest factor of all is that I really do wish to see things with my own eyes, and wonder about the things I see. This has driven my aperture hunger and I end up with a 16" dob which is about as much as I want to handle. There's nothing like good aperture, good eyepieces and good sky and just roaming around at will to see what you want.

[sabana]

Hi Moonshane.

Yes the Time/Cost is one thing on those rare clear sky nights. But the fact you mention the camera 'hogging' the eyepiece for long periods is very true also. I too think along those lines. And I'm a full time professional photographer so I should be interested but for some reason the time lost in viewing is a real downer. The only answer to this would be a 2 scope set up.

[ollypenrice]

I was quite reluctant to start imaging but I felt that my business needed it. I had always been visual. The passion for imaging grew so fast, though, because you can go so incredibly deep with a camera. For me it's a way of finding out much more about what's out there. The Rosette and the Cone nebulae, for instance, are not really two objects but aspects of one greater one. Trying to plan an image that will bring this out is deeply fascinating. Working on the processing is an act of love for what is out there. If that sounds pretentious I can only apologize but it just is, for me, and that's that.

But while the camera is doing its thing you can enjoy some visual observing as well in whatever instrument you have to hand. Just your eyes are pretty good!

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I am very much an observer (had a lot of fun with Olly's 20" Dob last summer!). I love trying to pick out faint objects with my scope. Picking out faint galaxies or difficult emission nebulae such as the Pelican or Cave (very hard that!) is curiously rewarding. I can also get through a lot more objects in an evening than with photography. I would love to get into imaging (have done some planetary), but cost is an issue. I did buy my APM 80 mm F/6 travel scope with the possibility of photography in mind. Ideally, you would have the 80mm on a good tracking mount (HEQ5 or so) ticking away, while I use the C8 visually.

[Zakalwe]

Each to his or her own.

I like a quick view through a scope (I love scanning the Moon with the 8" SCT), but ultimately, IMHO, visual always disappoints. M31? faint fuzzy blob. M42? Hint of green in a shaped fuzzy blob. M45, diamonds in velvet, but nothing compared to an image. Jupiter? Beautiful, but nothing in comparison to what you can get with a cheap webcam and Registax.

For me, nothing beats stacking a pile of subs and seeing the detail emerging. Doing visual and knowing that all of that detail and beauty is beyond the scope of my inferior "wetware" eyes just frustrates the hell out of me. Plus, I like the technical challenge of getting the kit to work together....getting a flat PHD graph after manually setting up has it's own attractions.

As for the paraphrased quote from Sir Patrick? Well, even he admits that although his early Lunar work was used by NASA, it has been far superseded now. There's not much science being done in the field of astronomy that involves peering through an EP.

What we do is 99.999% a hobby. So enjoy doing what you do.

[John]

....What we do is 99.999% a hobby. So enjoy doing what you do.

Yep

I'm 100% visual though I admire the work that goes into the imaging side of things. I've dabbled at a very superficial level with some planetary and lunar snapshots but I'm happy to stay with what I know for now. I prefer non-driven alt-az mounts which makes imaging a little challenging to say the least

But "whatever floats your boat" as they say

[ismangil]

I suppose it's the same as any hobby, there are various ways you can get into it.

Bird/wildlife watching is similar in this respect, there are people perfectly content logging observations, other will become wildlife photographer still other would become wildlife film maker.

I disagree about the no science visually I seem to recall recent articles about variable star observing, which can be done by amateurs/hobbyists.

[PreludeToADream]

This is something I've been thinking about for the past few days actually! I'm pretty much purely visual. I'd probably do more astrophotography if I had a decent camera, but I'm not too fussed about it. I do appreciate the amount of work and effort needed to produce some of the spectacular photos I've seen around this site though.

[Zakalwe]

I suppose it's the same as any hobby, there are various ways you can get into it.

Bird/wildlife watching is similar in this respect, there are people perfectly content logging observations, other will become wildlife photographer still other would become wildlife film maker.

I disagree about the no science visually I seem to recall recent articles about variable star observing, which can be done by amateurs/hobbyists.

The twitching is a good analogy.

Regarding the science bit that's why I said 99.9999% of what we do is a hobby only. IIRC the greatest finder of supernovas is also an amateur (though he does uses software to identify the SN).

[todd8137]

i like a bit of both as they both have lots to offer,with me its a mood thing, observational route is themain for most i should think the dark side is something that happens by accident i think,unless that is the plan to start with,which ever route its all great in the end

[Starlight 1]

Well I am not into any of this I see no point in looking at a 1mm Star or spending my time taking photos when I can see them on here So its just looking at the Moon and working out how I can get my hands on all that gear left on it.Do you think a big magnet will work.

[Zakalwe]

So its just looking at the Moon and working out how I can get my hands on all that gear left on it.

:D

[dweller25]

I am 100% visual - I did try imaging but felt 'disconnected'

[Stu]

I'm purely visual for similar reasons to above. I have limited time due to work and family so want to spend my time seeing things myself. The fascination for me is actually looking at the objects first hand, with my own eyes. I do have a watec video camera which I will do some live view stuff on galaxies at some point, but even then setup takes precious observing time.

For me, I know that I could never spend the time learning the necessary skills to produce the quality of image seen on the forum, so I enjoy them, and totally respect those that choose imaging, but it's not for me.

I've been concentrating on observing jupiter recently, there is always something going on, and light pollution is not too much of an issue so it is very rewarding.

Stu

[GreatAttractor]

We should make a distinction between deep sky and solar system astrophotography. For instance, I am not tempted by DS astrophoto at all (heavy mounts, guiding and guiding scopes, cooled cameras, hours or tens of hours total exposure etc.), though of course I love watching these beautiful images. On the other hand, I enjoy a quick Jupiter, Moon or sunspots imaging session with a webcam. This produces some nice images too and isn't really time-consuming.

[Quatermass]

Good question mmm I would have to say that imaging is not just taking photos but that it is an edition to observing. For instance last night I wanted to observe galaxy 891 however it was really hard to see and hard to find. But because I have a basic imaging set up I was able to find it with my canon 350D by taking a few shots in the general area. Once found it only took a short time to capture a decent image that has allowed me to see it in much greater detail as the camera picks up things the human eye cannot.

So for me it is an exstention of my observation time allowing me to see more of the colors and details in my subject. Those that shy away from imaging are put off by it mainly because it seems to costly and complicated but I would argue that it is not at a basic level and that it improves your observing time. However having said all that observing with out a camera or webcam is just not as much fun for me personally so mybe the darkside has got to me ;-) join us

Sent from my GT-S5670 using Tapatalk

[Damo636]

Purely visual for me also. I prefer to let you guys do all the hard work and then admire the awe inspiring shots on here.

[Quatermass]

Never been tempted at all ;-) ?

Sent from my GT-S5670 using Tapatalk

[rwilkey]

I prefer 'visual', I prefer to see stuff with my own eyes. Exploring the heavens with 'someone elses' eyes is not my idea of fun, or staying in a conservatory looking at a computer screen all the time, that's not the real thing in my view. But I appreciate the great photos I have seen, but I can turn on my PC anytime and go to the Hubble website.

[MikeP]

I try to do both. Here are the pros and cons as I see them:

Visual - I usually use a dob which is stored at ambient temperature so I can be observing in 10 minutes or so. The peace and tranquillity is what appeals to me as I look at objects and let my thoughts drift about "life, the universe and everything". On the negative side, for me, there is an element of "train spotting" - ticking off objects I have seen (bit nerdy) but the biggest disadvantage is having old eyes and not being able to see objects very well or even find them.

Imaging - there are a number of challenges in imaging, right the way from careful alignment of the mount to detailed processing of the captured subs. Life is about taking on challenges, so until I can produce images that satisfy me, I'll carry on (slowly). Certainly there is a magic about seeing an object appear on your computer screen knowing that you made it from your captured photons - especially when you know that if you look through the scope, you won't see anything. The negatives are fairly obvious - cost, set up time (if you don't have an obsy), spending hours under the only clear sky for weeks and due to errors managing to capture nothing.

There are lots of other options that straddle the two disciplines - spectroscopy and observing / measuring variable and double stars are the ones that spring to mind. It comes down to what interests you, your budget and how much time you have available.

Mike

[rwilkey]

Mike, that's really put it into perspective, I am of the visual discipline only, but great if you have time and money for both. I find visual expensive enough for me.

[Double Kick Drum]

Purely visual for me too.

If I had the money for some decent imaging kit/motorised mount, I am sure I would dabble.

Seems to me that Astronomy already needs quite a lot of patience. Imaging takes this to a whole new level, surely?

[Woking]

I only observe at dark sites so the extra gear and time spent setting up does'nt appeal. Plus it's not cheap either.

With visual I like hopping around the sky to see as many objects time and the clouds allow. Quite happy to just browse the professional and amateur images in the media and on SGL, they are astonishingly good especially those done by folk in their backgarden.

[swamp thing]

I have hideous LP at home, so even though I could possibly image from there I have no interest in sitting under a horrible orange glow, when I could be out under a starry sky.

Half of the pleasure in observing for me is being out under the stars.

I like my kit to be simple ( like me ) so as little electrics as possible. I also really enjoy the freedom that a Dob mount gives me.

A large Dob under a dark sky is as good as astronomy can get IMO.

I used to dabble in AP but gave up for several reasons.

First I felt frustrated as I never actually saw anything except the guide star as the camera was hogging the views.

Second I hated the set up faff about. (the mounts weren't as user friendly then). The photohraphic kit in those days was almost impossible for a mobile set up.

Lastly the results always disappointed me. The end product was just a photo.

This was admittedly in the days of emulsions as CCD's were Only just coming out and prohibitively expensive and digital SLR's just not available.

I'm sure the new kit available is a lot more user friendly/portable. Maybe one day I'll give it a bash but right now I'm happy with the way I observe and the great views through the eyepiece.

Regards Steve