Perfect Images versus Object Variety

[Macavity]

As a mere sometime Video Imager, I am fairly content NOT being able to emulate the best! 

But recently, during an imaging presentation, after the 3rd or 4th "Elephant's Trunk",

I began to idly wonder about (crave images of) the "Rest of the Elephant"? 

Idem magazine images. Those that most fascinate me, are the ones I haven't seen so often? 

Those or the unconventional "take" on familiar objects. I find myself currently captivated by 

*extreme* wide fields that put the many large coloured nebulae into galactic context / scale. 

NO criticism! Perhaps just the different perspective of a casual audience (me) versus initiates?  

But just wondering if anyone else ever felt the same way - Might deliberately be going for the

less familiar objects or the novel views of the mundane? IF (already) so, my eager anticipation!

(Or do I hear the merry sound of imager hammers on nails as they erect the scaffold. lol) 

[laser_jock99]

The less common objects are fainter and/or smaller- therefore more difficult to image. Basically there's a limited number of objects to pick from using average equipment and observing sites.

[Macavity]

The less common objects are fainter and/or smaller- therefore more difficult to image. Basically there's a limited number of objects to pick from using average equipment and observing sites.

Perhaps one of the "joys" (sic) of Video Astronomy - You can image faint / diverse objects rather quicky. At least to *some* level anyway.  Coincidentally, there has been a certain *surge* in diversity recently? The minor planets, outer planets, comets! (Dependent also on visibility, clearly) I hope to try for these... or rather emphasise the (Uranian) satellites or (Neptune's) Triton. Such things do rather lend themselves to video...  Others might beat me to this? 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have just been discussing image processing techniques with the professionals, and they go for quantity, not quality, I find. Looking at many Sloan Digital Sky Survey images of galaxies, they are certainly not the prettiest, but they were not made to be pretty, they were made to tease out as many objects as possible. That is not necessarily what gets most people into astrophotography. The nice thing about the hobby is that there is room for everybody. Each can do what they like best imaging-wise. Antoher point I would raise is that when I applaud an image of a well-known object (like the Witch's Broom which crops up a lot at this time of the year) I applaud the effort made by the imager as much as the image itself. Yes, others have imaged the same object, and maybe even better, but a fellow enthusiast has achieved something nice, and that is worthy of applause.

[pete_l]

I understand what you say: does the world really need another image of the Andromeda Galaxy?

However, having images of popular (read: easy) targets does serve a useful purpose in that they help people calibrate or refine their image processing skills.

If you see a mighty fine final image that is taken with equipment similar to your own, you could well ask yourself: why can't I do that (or the converse: how do I do that?) which will both tell you what your kit should be capable of and inspire you to hone your processing skills and learn some new techniques. These easy targets also provide you with a historical trail of how you have progressed in the craft - and in turn, to give inspiration to others.

[Macavity]

Some great points. I am always interested in ideas to promote Science & Astronomy.

Get people involved etc. It's probably the "silly season" for Astronomy. Things usually 

improve with the longer nights, the end of school holiday, lesser commitments etc. 

Sometimes at astronomy society meetings, imagers can be too modest! Once one appreciates the time and effort that goes into this stuff? Locally perhaps, if our less regular contributers (mea culpa too) can be encouraged to "have a go" and also present stuff. Idem technical presentations - We clearly have a lot of highly skilled (rather hidden!) local talent. For my past sins, I'm accustomed to "doing talks", but if anyone is "listening out there" and can be encouraged to overcome their natural reluctance. Astronomer audiences are notably enthusiastic and ever keen for to see / hear things! 

[laser_jock99]

The minor planets, outer planets, comets! (Dependent also on visibility, clearly) I hope to try for these... or rather emphasise the (Uranian) satellites or (Neptune's) Triton. Such things do rather lend themselves to video...  Others might beat me to this? 

I tried to image Saturn with my Lodestar x2 recently. Even with the shortest exposure setting (~0.25s) Saturn was grossly over exposed. The surprising thing is the number of Saturn's minor moons that showed up.

I understand what you say: does the world really need another image of the Andromeda Galaxy?

However, having images of popular (read: easy) targets does serve a useful purpose in that they help people calibrate or refine their image processing skills.

If you see a mighty fine final image that is taken with equipment similar to your own, you could well ask yourself: why can't I do that (or the converse: how do I do that?) which will both tell you what your kit should be capable of and inspire you to hone your processing skills and learn some new techniques. These easy targets also provide you with a historical trail of how you have progressed in the craft - and in turn, to give inspiration to others.

The easy objects are the apprenticeship we all go through. However, there's no harm in going back to the popular objects when skills improve or you get new equipment!

[RikM]

I am trying for quality over quantity but still have a long way to go. I like to get the best out of the kit I can afford rather than continually upgrading.