unrealistic idea of telescope views?

[crashtestdummy]

just wondering if other people agree that all these amazing atro photo's in the magazines using 1 hour+ exposures and photo editing ends up giving new astronomers an unrealistic idea on what they are going to be able to see through the average telescope?i personally did a few months research before i purchased my first scope so knew what to expect rather than ending up dissapointed but im sure some people who see images of pin sharp galaxies in magazines that end up only being faint smudges when viewed through a scope end up very dissapointed.

your oppinions please

[Qualia]

Ay, it's a very easy mistake to make and unless one is very careful and does their research or has some kind of previous experience, I imagine there are many who feel let down and a tad deceived. Indeed, from time to time, threads do crop up at SGL highlighting some poor enthusiast's very real disappointment.

The 'deception' is further exasperated by well-meaning astronomers themselves. Often one will come across an amazing photo of some distant nebula, galaxy or a crystal sharp detailed shot of some planet with accompaning information, say, something like this:

Telescope: Sky Watcher ED80/600

Filters: Ha, OIII, SII

Camera: Canon EOS350D

Exp:: 2×720″ + 1×300″

ISO: 400/ 200.

our innocent beginner looks at the photo, looks for what telescope 'saw' that image, already realises that there's just too much to learn at the beginning what with conflicting information about newts and fracs and dobs and gems and EPs and then the 'science' side of things about constellations, star maps and Messier objects and so on, to get their head around more weird numbers and abreviations and quite innocently concludes, "wow, if an 80mm refractor can see that, imagine what an 8" dob will do!" Unless one keeps their wits about them, they may end up thinking this is what the telescope is capable of doing with one's own eyes on the skies.

There ought to be some kind of beginner's warning on every telescope box and advert and image: This Telescope Will Not Show You A View Like Those Images You Have Seen In Magazines or Photography Sections of Astronomy Forums.

And it is precisely for this very concern, that I try to point everyone to the sketches produced by patient astronomers. Sure, the sketches may not always be accurate, but at least they give the new comer a more realistic expectation of what to expect.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Crashtestdummy and I really hope new comers in the future arrive to this thread before they are unnecessarily deceived or feel ripped off in any manner.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Qualia

[paul schofield]

Without a doubt they do. And I think most if not all people starting out in astronomy, if we are honest were a little disappointed at the view of say, A galaxy. This is probably less true for those living in a dark sky location. I think if research into amateur astronomy is carried out prior to spending large sums of cash on a scope n bits or visiting an astronomy group get together, this would go some way to alleviate disappointment in teaching people what to expect from amateur equipment. Personally I also did quite a lot of research before getting my first scope and have never felt disappointed when finding a deep sky object. The first time I saw M31 through my binoculars, I was buzzing for hours afterwards. For people who don't get that feeling, there is always astro photography, but then I think their disappointment if starting out would come more from reading their bank statements.

[crashtestdummy]

Agree,m31 was just a small smudge for me but the fact that i was looking at a trillion stars not in my own galaxy was good enough for me.

[Stephen]

Other pointless warnings might include:

Buying this kitchen knife won't make you cook like Gordon Ramsey

Buying this aftershave won't make women throw themselves at you like Jude Law

Buying this car won't make you drive like Damon Hill

etc ...

[CFC]

Totally agree. Those piccies should have a warning on them!

[kevrees]

Agreed. About 20 years ago i can remember my nephew having a telescope for christmas one year claiming to be able to see rings of saturn and the usual stuff only for it to look like a spec.

As for astro-imaging (and ill probably be hated for saying this), im still sitting on the fence where that is concerned as, and this could be me being naive as well due to my lack of experience, but from the little i have read on the subject one takes a video clip of an object, then runs it through a bunch of computer software to stack the frames, adjust colours, magnify etc. which is basically manipulating the image so the final product, as awesome as it looks, is nothing like what was actually captured to begin with.

Going back to the original subject tho, they should have some sort of message on the packaging saying the views are not taken from the actual scope, with maybe some pictures on the box of what one can actually expect to see through the purchased scope.

[RikM]

As well as pointing people towards the sketching section, I think this link gives the closest comparison to my views: http://www.backyardvoyager.com/eyepieceviews.html

Having owned a small 60mm refractor since the late 1970's, I had a fair expectation of what I would be able to see when I bought my first real scope. There are plenty of other 'comparison' sites, but again these all use long exposure CCD images, so other than perhaps getting a sense of scale, don't bare any relation to what you will actually see with your own eyes.

A problem for equipment manufacturers is how would telescope sales be affected by 100% realistic images?..."buy this £2,500 telescope with a built in database of 40,000 objects, spend 2 hours setting it up and aligning it to be able to see...this smudge...if you squint at it with averted vision and use a bit of imagination!"

For me, the thrill is far more about what the object is and the fact that I can see it at all, with relatively humble equipment from a back garden in Gloucester, rather than what it looks likes in the eyepiece.

[RikM]

Agreed. About 20 years ago i can remember my nephew having a telescope for christmas one year claiming to be able to see rings of saturn and the usual stuff only for it to look like a spec.

As for astro-imaging (and ill probably be hated for saying this), im still sitting on the fence where that is concerned as, and this could be me being naive as well due to my lack of experience, but from the little i have read on the subject one takes a video clip of an object, then runs it through a bunch of computer software to stack the frames, adjust colours, magnify etc. which is basically manipulating the image so the final product, as awesome as it looks, is nothing like what was actually captured to begin with.

Going back to the original subject tho, they should have some sort of message on the packaging saying the views are not taken from the actual scope, with maybe some pictures on the box of what one can actually expect to see through the purchased scope.

I also image, so get the best of both sides of the hobby. It is true that you do take many images and stack them, then run them through software, but this processing is to correct for flaws in the image like thermal noise, or light pollution and building up the exposure time to compensate for the object being so dim and faint. You don't add anything that wasn't captured in the first place, just subtract the defects to leave what should be a realistic image of the object 'as captured by the camera rather than as seen by eye!'

[cotterless45]

The images are spectacular and show the full beauty of the Universe and how lucky we are to live in it. Since we're never going to see such colours and shapes visually,

I compare this and visual images to the airbrushing of celeb pictures ( not in a negative way).

Nick.

[sunshine185]

I also think that the photos that are printed onto some of the actual telescope boxes are a bit naughty and misleading.

[Capricorn]

If we are to cast blame on the unrealistic images they see then we also have to consider the unrealistic aspect we here attribute to various scopes and what they can do.

I see many people start here, ask advice, usually get talked out of what they originally intended and then never see them on SGL again. I really would like to know what happened with them. Ever had the feeling they are not happy with what they were told and have decided to give up and walk away ?

How many members are there on SGL and how many have less then 10 posts and not been active in the last year?

I assume all those have gone.

Images are a nightmare, if you reply to say you will not be able to image with that type of mount/scope/system then someone pops up with the one half decent image they took in 2 years and says "Of course you can here is the proof!"

That's what the starter wants to hear and off they go.

Expected views in telescopes are unrealistic, people expect colours, people even expect to see colours in what are x-ray objects, UV objects and IR objects. Utterly ignoring the fact we cannot actually see in those wavelengths at all.

The posts that start out saying I want to look at planets in detail, at DSO's in clarity and produce images to shame Hubble on a maximum budget of £250 are beyond count. Yet we try to break it to them that this will be difficult, without actually saying it specifically. The reality is they might do 1 OR 2 reasonably but 3 is out of the question.

[pete_l]

It's not just astro images, the media plays a large part in misrepresenting astronomy, too.

Whenever there's an astronomical "phenomenon" (the up-coming Perseids is a good and regular example), there are reports in newspapers and on TV about the amazing and breath-taking (other exaggerations are available) sight that will appear in the night sky. Now I appreciate that this is partly due to astronomers' natural exuberance, but it's also parroted by media people desperate for a sensational story - even though they repeat it ever year - and even though it never lives up to the hype.

The reason that bright, colourful, saturated images have such an attraction is exactly because they're processed to have that effect. The reason news reports mislead Joe Public about comets, meteors and others is down to ignorance, Maybe what we need to do to assert our credibility is to tone-down the hype. Tell people that a meteor shower won't be the free firework display it's promoted as, that comets (though we haven't had a decent one for a while) are washed out by light pollution and that the attractiveness of astro-photos is down to the skill and perseverance (and £1000's of kit) of the talented few.

[Ant]

Any new hobby is going to set you back multiple hundreds of pounds maybe even four figures to get started. Even something a simple as walking. You need to buy the right boots so you don't screw up your feet, you need the right clothes, provisions etc etc...

We are very lucky that once you've bought the kit (upgrades aside) it's a completely free hobby.

People that think that you can see the colourful images through a scope, haven't in my opinion done enough research or asked enough questions... the observing board(s) are full of descriptions of what people see, if anyone asks the question they are generally pointed towards the sketches section - but even that takes time.

I agree that using the lovely colourful images on retail boxes on small 50mm scopes is wrong and I do agree this could be very misleading.

The fact that lots of people join SGL ask advice, get given the truth about what they are likely to see means that we have saved these people from spending money and being disappointed.

Surely you cannot be suggesting that Imagers stop?

Talented few? anyone can do it!! - it does take a little time to learn what works and what doesn't and processing is a constant learning process. If you were instantly good at it... where is the fun in that? all hobbies have a learning curve all hobbies take time to master. Even observing takes time to learn, you get better the more you do.

Ant

[lukebl]

.... If you were instantly good at it... where is the fun in that? .....

Those are my thoughts entirely. I'm still pretty rubbish at imaging after several years at it, but to paraphrase JFK: I choose to do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard! A constant learning process.

[cantab]

I concur they could give people the wrong idea, but I'm not sure what's best to do about it. The magazine won't stop putting the images in, not least because they'd disappoint the regular readership. Astronomy Now does have a regular section on sketching, and I think S@N does too, but maybe give more prominence to it? I wonder if accompanying telescope reviews with either sketches or as-the-eye-sees images would be useful.

[Carbon Brush]

I also think that the photos that are printed onto some of the actual telescope boxes are a bit naughty and misleading.

Only a BIT misleading? My own view is that any scope with Hubble quality images on the box should be immediately rejected.

A nice quote from someone who had just upgraded from a 6" newt to an 8" newt.

M31 was a small grey fuzzy blob.

Now it is a slightly larger grey fuzzy blob.

[Steve Ward]

I think a lot depends on how and where you purchase kit , and the 'research' you put in to start with.

If you find a retailer with honest , helpful staff that are willing to spend some time with you explaining things in a realistic fashion , you are much more likely to come away with a realistic idea of what you'll see.

A blind purchase on-line with no research is more than likely going to end in frustration.

The amount of posts here and elsewhere relating to the most basic things , pointing north , can't see anything , why is Saturn so small , etc seem to reflect this in my eyes.

I spent a lot of time deciding what I needed , so I thought , but after an initial visit to my local retailer and a 3 hour 'consultation' I came away with a much better understanding of what to expect from a variety of kit.

In the end ( not that there is ever an end to this game) I ended up with a set-up that ( i ) I am more than happy with , ( ii ) lets me do what I wanted to do , ( iii ) I can handle , use , collimate etc , all because of a very knowledgeable , helpful , patient , retail team.

A team I might add that put up with me on a regular basis , dealing with the ongoing trials and tribulations of a 'Newbie' , who still comes up against snags that need ironing out .

Don't try getting into this blind is my advice to anyone thinking of getting into astronomy , get some advice and avoid disappointment.

Steve.

[Darkstar_1]

I agree totally that research is important when choosing kit, but the scopes in Argos, lidl and other chain stores are aimed at the young person market. Some young kid sees the pics on the box and says " wow mum look at that" and natters until he gets it (i have 6 kids i know). Which average mum would think to spend time researching when little Johnny is after his birthday pressie? Misleading images should not cover the box the wobbly 70mm frac on it's shaky mount comes in.

[Vega26]

Fortunately, thanks to plenty of research I knew what to expect before my first scope arrived, but it is easy to see where this perception of what can be expected when looking through a telescope comes from. Whille the planets and moon never fail to impress, deepsky objects I have shown to non-astronomers do not tend to get anywhere near the same positive reaction.

[alexog]

Regarding misleading packaging I was going to post:

"It's not as bad as it used to be with 2 inch refractors suggesting X525 POWER! on the box"

But then did a quick Google and they're still at it. Ok with a 4mm eyepiece and a x3 barlow you do get x525 but a complete waste of time.

A friend once brought a broken (red) telescope round he found in a skip and asked if I wanted it for spares. This one had the simple 50mm objective stopped down to 15mm!!! It's all "nice and legal, like" but misleading is an understatement. Especially if the box has a Hubble image of The Andromeda Galaxy on it and a photo of a kid sat next to said piece of junk giving a big thumbs up.

Rant over

[Hawksmoor]

I always recommend 'Turn Left at Orion' to those newcomers considering turning binoculars or a telescope skyward. The drawings reflect what you are likely to see but the enthusiasm of the authors for searching the skies 'shines through'. I'm sure, one of the reasons it has taken me so long to find some of the fainter DSOs for the first time, is careless text in magazines or books presumably written by the 'eagle eyed'. As far as I'm concerned seeing the Crab Nebula through binoculars, however dark the site, is not a tenable proposition.

As for hyped up photos, I consider myself one of the worst culprits for the over deployment of Photoshop. My wife, who is very supportive of my overly focused liking for astronomy and digital imaging, keeps me well and truly grounded, when it starts getting technicolor, she starts humming "When Goldilocks went to the house of the bears...". It may not be reality, whatever that might be, but I really enjoy myself, looking at the stars, looking through an eyepiece or messing about with images on a laptop (the last of which you can do when its chucking it down).

[umadog]

It's like anything in life: you get out of it what you put in and you won't get much out of it if you don't do your research. I know the photo/visual thing is a common misconception, but any introductory book on astronomy will tell you not to expect Hubble-like views and that everything will be colourless. Anyone who's serious about astronomy would have read a book or talked to someone knowledgeable before buying. I reckon most of these 49.99 department store scopes are sold to people who were never very serious in the first place. Frankly, the thing that's putting off most beginner isn't the cheap telescopes it's the light pollution.

[JamesM]

I agree with OP's point of the deception induced by advertisers using hubble images to illustrate the 'performance' of cheap scopes and is in my view similar to the use of small print to convey terms and conditions - unacceptable. Mind you, this ploy is not restricted to just the cheaper scopes as great astro images can be seen behind almost any astro related product. Although it is unlikely that astro magazines can help make representations against manufacturers using this practice of false advertising, they certainly can make a difference by not using uncredited astro images in their monthly star guides, when the use of drawings would be more appropriate and accurate too.

Having said that, adults aren't children and common sense has to be allowed to play its part too. The public have now seen so many Hubble pictures which they must know have ( in real terms) cost thousands of millions to produce, that to think that this could be obtained for a couple of hundred quid is a little naive to say the least. I have always recommended that as part of any research, people should at least get a couple of viewing sessions under their belt by attending local public outreach events so that can see for themselves what they will be able to observe.

I am a great fan of astrophotography and I am constantly amazed at the quality of images that are being produce with relatively modest equipment but I would like there to be clear water between the results gained by this method with those that can be viewed with the naked eye whilst observing as raising false expectations with inappropriate use of false images will only prove counterproductive in the longer term.

James

[Chris]

yep it really grinds my gears when I see plastic stopped down scopes for kids with world class astrophoto's on the box, poor mislead children destined for dissapointment.