Why astrophotography?

[Macavity]

I was talking to an "imager" at my local Astro Soc. I had thought him a tad "fearsome" but he's a good (notably encouraging to newcomers!) bloke. As I gazed in wonder at his latest incredible "Hubble Pallet" images, I ventured to ask what *scope* he used - Me thinking "Skywatcher ED80" or something? Uhm... "Takahashi 5" APO", he casually replied. I think that's the main "problem" with the imaging / imagers... image? [teasing!]

I think it's good to look for our commonalities. Few(er) of us astronomers are "rich" these days? Despite the cheapening of basic equipment, "consumate" imaging is still a fairly (or rather more) expensive business? On the other hand, I have an "observatory" - He does all is imaging "Al Frasco" - Man of Steel! Just throwing down the gauntlet re. "imaging on a budget" etc. Noting the possible contribution of VIDEO astronomy.

[r3i]

For me it was a logical progression from visual and was down to:

• One grey fuzzy blob was beginning to look like any other
  
• Think age has probably made my eyesight not as acute as it once was
  
• The technical challenges of integrating all the gear & software together and the many opportunities for improving things means I don't think I'll be getting bored with it anytime soon
  
• Processing the images gives you something to do on those frequent cloudy nights
  
• I love playing with stuff that has wires attached
  

However it still makes a refreshing change to stick an eyepiece into a scope or get the binoculars out to do some visual observing.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I'm very much in favour of visual observing and wish I had more opportunity to do more of it. However, beware the historical dangers of being restricted to the limitations of scope and eyeball. If you start thinking you can see canals on Mars or evidence of life on the Moon or Sun, it's time to take a step back.

More seriously, the human eye has limitations; it never evolved for the purpose of studying dim astronomical objects. There is only so much you can see through an eyepiece. A CCD, on the other hand, can gather light for hours when married to a suitable mount, revealing details it would be otherwise impossible to see.

[stem1989]

I was disappointed at the eyepiece, comparing what I could see with pictures in magazines and it was just a blob, it didn't do a great deal for me... AP however.... ruins my bank on a monthly basis

[Scott]

I really enjoy visual astronomy. I just really enjoy A.P. more

[StuartJPP]

I equate it to birdwatching/bird photography, I much prefer taking photos of birds. That is not to say I don't like watching birds and their habits, but I'd rather get a nice photo of one than have to describe it to someone.

Some birdwatchers will just observe, others will take photos of birds then draw/paint them, some will just tick them off a list (twitchers) and move on to the next (they are the weird ones ). Very similar in a way to people on here to be honest.

[brantuk]

I love looking at stuff through the eyepiece and particularly showing newbies their first jaw dropping moments. It's also quite enjoyable describing what I've seen to other folks during the day - they get quite interested.

As for "why astrophotography" - well it would be nice to show folks some pics of what I've seen - that would grab their interest even more - as soon as I get to grips with all the techniques - I'm well read but have yet to put it all together in practise.

[ArmyAirForce]

Other than my previous interest in daytime photography. I got into AP from the start due to the level of light pollution where I live ( 8 to 9 on the Bortle Dark Sky Scale ). Visually, I'm very limited from home, but even a few short stacked subs can make visible a target that is invisible to the eyepiece.

This is NGC 5466, a globular cluster 51,800 light years away. 33 minutes of exposure in 3 minute subs. No chance of seeing it from home, but a few more subs added to this should bring out more of the star colours.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Why AP for beginners?

Why not?

Even imagers have to start somewhere. AP and observing are two very different fields in astronomy (there are others). AP is more interesting to some while others take a different route in the science.

I think 99.99% of us have at one stage taken an image of the night sky. Great. Its fun and rewarding.

I personally prefer to do visual work because i like the feeling i get being outside, at one with the universe seeing it with my own eyes in real time. I also dont think i would have the level of dedication/focus etc to ever become involved in AP to the level that we see day in, day out here on the imaging forum.

I love the work imagers do.

[NickK]

it goes like this...

* Got a spare 3 hours.. try it...

* Processing you're happy that you got something decent but better next time.. with some more equipment.. to get more done more quickly along with more practice should do it...

* months go past where it's cloudy

* Clear patch and you have work commitments, family commitments... so no chance..

* cloudy months...

* it's summer...

* rinse and repeat...

I find the only time i get some serious time is taking a week off and doing it.. even then it's not guaranteed.

When you get good data.. when the processing works perfectly.. it's rewarding.

I usually like targeting odd things that are't the stereotypical beautiful things; things that you don't see visually. The images aren't pretty but they're interesting to me

Oh.. add that I end up programming astro gadgetry more than I get with clear skies!

[LukeSkywatcher]

The images aren't pretty but they're interesting to me

Hit the nail on the head there. No matter what level of AP you do (from simple point and shoot to full on hardcore imaging), once the results make you happy that is what matters. Its a hobby for most. Its meant to be fun and enjoyable.

Whatever field of astronomy tickles your fancy, just get out there when you can and enjoy it.

[ArmyAirForce]

I also find that the AP enhances the visual experience. Taking a nice colour photo, of the grey fuzzy patch you were previously looking at, brings that object to life for me, as does looking it up on the net and learning about its distance, age, formation etc. The little cluster picture I posted is 51,800 LY away. To put it another way, the light that landed on my camera sensor started its journey in the late Middle Paleolithic period of history.

[RikM]

I am one of those who wants it all

I had every intention of being a purely visual astronomer and was all set to buy an 8" dob as my first proper scope. But both my wife and my best friend (also an astronomer) said almost the same thing, 'as soon as you look through it, you are going to want to take a picture of it to share it with everybody'. I thought that was odd seeing as I had no interest in photography. Their reasoning was that I also play the guitar, and love both performing (sharing my music) and studio recording (sitting in front of a desk twiddling with settings for hours to get that sound). It turned out to be a perfect parallel and they were both dead right!

I now have an imaging set-up and a nice Dob for looking through, so I can have my cake and eat it and it only cost me...well...every penny to my name and I wouldn't have it any other way

[heavensabove]

Because people are interested in different things! The question might as well be; why on earth would anyone be interested in Astronomy?!! Or you could ask; why on earth would anyone want to learn the sky when computers know it already! It's all down to the individual and what they want to do.

That is a very good point . I am a nature lover but really get a kick out of doing macrophotography of bugs and insects . You get a level of details that never fails to bring a WOW from folk looking at them .Now it is true that most people enjoy the natural world but not with enough dedication to tackle macrophotography because well...it isn't really easy and it's not for everyone .

Have a look at this little beauty !!!

http://www.flickr.co...157601185352902

I see astrophotography in the same way , I can see the appeal but what puts me off is that it requires dealing with a steep learning curve , deep pockets , buckets of time spent at the computer for what in the end will result in images that are very similar to each other , the M51 from one camera will always look like than the M51 taken with an other .

I guess what I am trying to say is that imaging DSOs is based mainly on equipment rather artistic license .

Widefield offers a lot more in that respect though .

Having said this , I would be disingenious to say I don't like looking at the many wonderful pics on this forum .It is just not for me , it just would eat too much into the 3 clear nights I get a year ;-)

Christophe

[swamp thing]

1362776546[/url'>' post='1859926']buckets of time spent at the computer for what in the end will result in images that are very similar to each other , the M51 from one camera will always look like than the M51 taken with an other .

I guess what I am trying to say is that imaging DSOs is based mainly on equipment rather artistic license .

Widefield offers a lot more in that respect though .

Having said this , I would be disingenious to say I don't like looking at the many wonderful pics on this forum .It is just not for me , it just would eat too much into the 3 clear nights I get a year ;-)

Christophe

My thoughts right here ^^^^ respect what Astro imagers do but have no interest in this branch of photography.

[RikM]

... in the end will result in images that are very similar to each other , the M51 from one camera will always look like than the M51 taken with an other .

I guess what I am trying to say is that imaging DSOs is based mainly on equipment rather artistic license .

Just as in visual observing where it isn't necessarily what it looks like that counts, it's more the experience of actually seeing it and the idea of what it is.

For my AP it isn't what the final image looks like (and I would be chuffed to bits if mine looked like some others on this forum) but more the fact that I did it, with my camera from my back garden. It matters not a jot that I could download a Hubble image to look at or that someone with better skies and more skill could do better. What matters is 'I did that'. I get exactly the same buzz lifting the curves control and seeing a faint galaxy appear on the screen as I do tracking it down with the Dob. The feeling of 'discovery' for want of a better word is just the same for me.

[nytecam]

Ryan - a very reasoned post. The vast majority of amateur astronomers happily stick to visual observing with binoculars and modest telescopes for their entire life and wont for no more. Some join national and local atronomical societies for social, and group activities and see and hear some of astro celebs too! Those that join SGL may be more driven to share and expand their experiences in a learning process. I go with both options !

That said AP overall is very much a minority sport, along with variable star and planetary observations, supernova and comet hunting, spectroscopy and radio astronomy etc. The list gets longer with specialisation.

My early photo experience was a film developed under a ruby lamp in the bathroom - I was hooked! But I've been long been aware the human eye, whilst supremely sensitive, is designed to see 'movies' at about 25 frames per second and no amount of staring at a faint object through an eyepiece will you see more. Modern CCDs approach 90% efficency in converting light to an electronic signal and just a few seconds exposure leapfrog the tardy eye with both detail and colour - something the eye alone can't achieve.

Of course with AP on SGL there seems no maximum exposure - a recent post on another forum boasted of 96 hours cumulation exposure on one object! Also the SGL AP tutorial suggests the scope should accurately track the stars for 20 min? - if I recall correctly which seems a downer for someone starting AP. I find a few seconds or minutes exposure satisfies me and I get to 'see' many DSO in an evening that I otherwise wouldn't under light poluted skies. Happy viewing.

[Double Kick Drum]

I am a pretty dedicated visual observer but can see the merits of AP too.

Personally, I am just at the point where I am starting to experiment with some simple wide angle single exposures of the night sky with my Canon 1100d but can already see the appeal.

Once I am confident with the camera, I will buy some motors and adaptors and take it a bit more seriously but it will be some time before I can invest properly in it. Having said all that, I still prefer finding my way around the Messier, Caldwell and Herschel lists etc.

I think the site (and hobby) is all the richer for varying interests within Astronomy.

[smudgeball]

I think a good indicator to answer this question is to look at posts in the beginners section.

When people new to this hobby ask for advice on what telescope to buy, they inevitably tag on the end of the question ....."for visual, but I may want to do a bit of imaging as well?"

Quite simply it's the lure of images seen in magazines that makes you wonder "could I do that??"

I started off with a 6SE on its alt/az goto mount and was happy viewing planets, M42, and perhaps the odd tour of some fainter objects.

I was never drawn to astrophotography.

Last November I went to the Galloway star camp with a pal who had all the bells and whistles for astrophotography.

After 6 hours in what most described as ideal seeing, I left with a huge astrophotography bug and am now looking to increase my arsenal of equipment.

However, all I'm probably going to do is add to the already high frustration factor that comes with this hobby.

................but hey that's the fun of it !

Regards

Neil

[P_Monty]

My 2p ...

I've come from a photography background. I started taking pictures of the moon with my 500mm lens and thought 'What could I achieve with a telescope?'