Trouble with Nebulas

[Stargazer_00]

I've been trying to see a few Nebula recently and must admit I am struggling! I was under the impression that these were quite resistant to poor sky conditions and light pollution, respond well to aperture and filters.

I have a 14" reflector and a Skywatcher 2" UHC filter. I'd expect these nebula to be visible and yet I see nothing at all!

A pair i've been trying for are the NA neb and the Veil. Now I know these are huge and I appreciate that they wont fit in the entire FOV of my eyepieces in y largest scope, but I can't even see parts of them, nothing at all!

I thought maybe aperture might not play that big a job in the detection so I tried again in my 6" to no avail, naked eye holder filter over eye no avail and holding the UHC over the front of a 10x50 monocular, and still nothing. Maybe I need an OIII?

So back to my 14" there are a bunch of other nebs ive been looking for with nothing visible. Foot print nebula (a bright nebula!) need Alberio, can't see anything at all here. It's clearly placed on my star maps between two bright stars just up the connecting line from alberio to the cross. Can't see even a hint of this one. And there is another planetary nebula nearby which I thought might be ok given that I can see other planetary nebs and this showed nothing at all either!

I can see most of the Messier nebulas OK but many others, particularily those with NGC classifications only in my book (S&T PA) are not showing up very well if at all.

Any tips?

[Stargazer_00]

Im thinking maybe its just their apparent magnitudes are too low. I was judging their size in the maps as the magnitude but I think actually from memory they are an indication of size, not brightness. Maybe that's where im going wrong.

I guess there is no way of knowing from this book alone what the apparent magnitudes for the nebulas are and therefore what is worth trying to view.

[Kropster]

I thought that dim fuzzies are badly affected by poor conditions and light pollution.

The surface brightness is usually low.

Planets punch through because they are much brighter.

[acey]

It's true that some planetary nebulae (e.g. Ring, Eskimo, Cat's Eye) can be seen well even at light polluted sites. That's because they're very bright and have a high surface brightness. There are also a few emission nebulae such as the Orion Nebula that can be seen in bright conditions. But most nebulae are faint, and filters can only do so much. You say you can see most of the Messier nebulas - those are generally very bright compared to the rest of what you'll find in the NGC. The Veil and North America Nebulae are large and have low surface brightness compared with the Messier nebulae, but even they count as bright in comparison with most NGCs. In the end it all comes down to sky darkness - what you can see with a telescope depends on that.

For small extended objects, magnitude is a good indicator of visibility. But for large extended objects surface brightness is a better indicator. Don't choose targets on the basis of magnitude. Better to get a list of targets of comparable difficulty - if you can see some then you'll expect to see most. Messier is the obvious first list, Caldwell is a very mixed bag. This is a very good "best NGC" list:

http://messier.seds.org/xtra/similar/rasc-ngc.html

If you can't see these with your 14" then take your 6" to a dark site and you'll see them all no problem.

I'd never heard of the "footprint nebula" but Google tells me it's Minkowski 92. The fact that it has no NGC designation means it was missed by every visual observer in the 19th century - that's an indication of how inconspicuous it is. It has magnitude 11.3 so should be an easy target, but it's going to look just like a star unless you use very high power, and even then it may not look nebulous if the sky is too bright. I'll look out for it some time.

[Stargazer_00]

The location of the footprint is very well placed at the moment being at it's highest point in the sky of the entire year. If you're going to look for it, do it soon

thanks for the rest and the list, I'll give it a run through. I'm off to an extreme dark locaiton for a week in 2 weeks and will be taking my 6" so am planning on picking up all the faint things I can't see from home

[acey]

The location of the footprint is very well placed at the moment being at it's highest point in the sky of the entire year. If you're going to look for it, do it soon

It reaches that same point in the sky every 23.93 hours - the seasonal aspect is that you want it to be up there when it's dark. But yes, this is a good time for Cygnus, and maybe I'll give it a go - thanks for giving me the heads up on this lesser known beastie.

Good luck with your trip - if the weather is kind and the moon isn't in the way then you should manage a lot of targets with the 6".

[jetstream]

Hi Graham,some of these objects are very different to pick out as they have low surface brightness-some-not all.Object recognition is key,amongst other things.For the Veil,Johns recommendation for the Astronomic OIII was a game changer.I can even pick out the brighter Veil from my house,under light skies with it.And now that I have seen it,it becomes easier to find.What I do is practise finding the objects,leave them & come back to them over & over.After doing that I think ones brain becomes trained to find the stuff better-at this point I can find the Veil with no filter @27x in my 90mm......from dark skies.Look for a shadow wisp on this one & its HUGE.I can't see NA neb yet...I think I'm looking "thru" it,so tonite I'm gonna try to find an edge first,we'll see what happens.

Those filters work within a loosely designated exit pupil range-eg. my 90mm min exit pupil to work is 2.3mm,which gives me 39X.Have you tried your 14mm ES?3.1mm exit @ 114x.I can see the Veil & the Ring,Dumbell etc with my Ultrablock UHC,with the Veil showing more nebulosity,but not as contrasted.You will get the objects you seek ,for the Veil buy an OIII-it has changed my observing so much on some objects