Observation vs Imagination: The Results...

[Size9Hex]

How much more detail can you correctly capture in your observations when you give your imagination free rein?

Based on last night's session, which was a revelation to me, a huge amount.

I observed a series of targets with no significant advance knowledge or bias. I used the map on my phone to display the location of every galaxy, planetary and globular brighter than mag 11. I picked a few to observe, knowing only that each target was a DSO of one of the three types, and of mag 11 or brighter. The phone did not show the object type, name, outline, shape, size, orientation, magnitude, photo, description or any other information.

The notes below were made at the eyepiece, and were specific enough to be testable subsequently. So it's clear, I'm not claiming I saw everything I've reported below. "Saw" is the wrong word even allowing for averted vision. In some cases, it felt like my brain just had a "hunch" and the eyeball played no part it in. Hard to describe. Other times, I just wrote down things that were borderline imagination, or seemed like little more than random electrical active in the neural pathways.

All observations/imaginations made using a 10 inch manual Dob, at 85x and/or 180x magnification, from my less-than-dark back yard near the edge of town. Notes in brackets/italics were added later, as an attempt to mark my own homework with reference to published descriptions/photos. Compass directions were estimated roughly based on the direction of drift, so I've allowed a margin of error accordingly.

NGC 1023: elliptical galaxy in Perseus, mag 8.6
With averted vision, saw a compact (yes) nebulous spot. Not seen exactly, but possible east-west elongation (yes). Very unsure, but possible stellar point of light off centre to north east within core, or perhaps two points separated (debatable - there are some foreground stars in the photo which might be what I saw/imagined, but the brighter core does also look slightly offset to the NE in the photo too).

NGC 891: spiral galaxy in Andromeda, mag 10.0
Didn't see anything really. However, I think it was a large diffuse area (yes) with a north-south elongation (yes). Moving off target into nothingness, and then back, revealed perhaps that there was "less nothing" when on target.

IC 342: spiral galaxy in Camelopardalis, mag 9.7
Tried to convince myself that each of the faint stars might be a planetary, but my brain said no (correctly). Nothing seen, or sensed, or imagined, or detected in any way.

NGC 2683: spiral galaxy in Lynx, mag 9.1
Began the star hop at Iota Cancri which turned out to be a colourful double of tremendous charm. On target, there was an east-west elongation (yes) in averted vision like an edge on galaxy (yes). Really not confident, but it was longer or brighter to the west than the east (debatable, but it does seems to match the photo), and perhaps with a horizontal dark stripe on northern edge (yes) that was very occasionally speculated at, but certainly not "seen".

Comet C/2013 US10 Catalina
A brief interlude. Easily found near the pole star.

For the next two targets, I had some prior knowledge and previous observation, but not really more than "a fat bright galaxy and a thin bright galaxy".

M81: spiral galaxy in Ursa Major, mag 6.8
North-south elongated ellipse shape (yes). Central brightness possibly skewed maybe 30 degrees clockwise compared to general outline (debatable, although as a spiral galaxy, this could be a valid observation).

M82: spiral galaxy in Ursa Major, mag 8.1
Obvious east-west elongation (yes). Gut feel that it was brighter towards west than east (yes). An impression of darker diagonal stripes or notches cutting across the front, mainly north west to south east (yes).

The next one was again unknown to me, although I did know there was a fainter third galaxy somewhere in the area of M81/82, so I was expecting a galaxy.

NGC 3077: spiral galaxy in Ursa Major, mag 9.9
Detected to the south east of M81/82 while just scanning around, and later confirmed as NGC 3077. My prior knowledge was that there was a fainter galaxy somewhere near M81/82, but I didn't know in what direction, and had no knowledge of how it looked. Saw a small blob (yes), but for some reason, my brain wouldn't let go of it being a spiral (yes, although I'm hesitant to say I detected this at any level - maybe it was a guess, even though it felt like a confident guess).

Jupiter
A quick look before turning in. Low in the sky, but showed four dark belts, including a nice pale horizontal division in the north equatorial belt, with a couple of darker grey spots and diagonal wisps billowing south towards the equator. The wisps were hard to see, but were among the more concrete observations made during the evening nevertheless!

Overall, I think the "imagination" performed very well indeed at the threshold of perception on unknown targets. I would still struggle to trust this technique with known targets however. It was certainly an interesting exercise that I think has given me a better understanding of how my eye/brain perceives detail in the grey middle ground between seen and not-seen.

Thanks for reading. Any comments and anecdotes are welcome. It's an area of the hobby that I'm finding fascinating. My original post is in the discussion board, if of interest.
https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/260633-observation-or-imagination-of-subtle-details/

Trust your instinct

[Linda]

Hi Paul.

I have read somewhere (I think it was on the American forum) that experienced observers can see more than inexperienced observers. That depended on many factors, but one of them was training the brain in what to see. Next time you will see the features more easily, because your brain knows what to expect.

An example I have experienced was that during my first time watching Jupiter (with a warm scope), I only saw a white planet. The second time with a cold scope, I saw a white planet in the beginning, but after 5 or 10 minutes I started seeing 2 red bands. Now, if I look into the eyepiece, I see the red bands immediately.

 

So maybe studying objects in advance before observing them can gain the same effect to a certain degree and support your imagination.

[John]

Very interesting report Paul

If I'm in doubt about something I've observed I always try and repeat the observation either later in the session or on another occasion before mentally "ticking" it.

I agree with what Linda says about experience building each time you observe as well.

 

[Stu]

Excellent report Paul, a nice approach and one which will, I think, help you draw out additional details.

There are some very subtle objects out there, but with patience and good dark adaptation it's surprising what you can see. I've observed M51 from a dark site in a 4" scope before, and could quite easily see the haloes around each core, but my brain was also telling me I could detect spiraling within the halo. Whether this is imagined or real I don't know, but I'm sure there must be something in it as it doesn't happen on other faint objects nebulae, for instance, with no spiral structure.

[Moonshane]

Watch http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06y8hyr/the-brain-with-david-eagleman-1-what-is-reality and you may start to understand a little more as to why this works. An excellent watch.

[StarSapling]

Excellent report!  I've been making a point not to do too much pre-research of objects I've not observed before, except for location and visual magnitude.  Later, after the observation, I do more detailed research on the objects observed.  I often find that detail I wasn't completely sure of at the scope is there in posted images and sketches.  But, occasionally, I still get fooled by wishful thinking.

[Linda]

3 hours ago, StarSapling said:

Excellent report!  I've been making a point not to do too much pre-research of objects I've not observed before, except for location and visual magnitude.  Later, after the observation, I do more detailed research on the objects observed.  I often find that detail I wasn't completely sure of at the scope is there in posted images and sketches.  But, occasionally, I still get fooled by wishful thinking.

I do that too. But the challenge is then that I often don't know for sure whether I have found open clusters. I have started making very basic sketches of the starts I see, and then try to compare later. But it would have been easier to know what to look for. I have printed out pictures of Messier objects and NGC objects (files available on the internet), but that catalogue is far from complete. And it is not always easy to recognize a cluster from a picture.

 

I have also understood today that it can be useful to know what to look for when looking for certain nebulas.

Using the iPad during observation is also not a good idea, because it ruins my night vision. Maybe in a red plastic folder... I also dislike electronics outside, because it can create hassle...

 

[Size9Hex]

Thanks everyone :-)

It does seem very true that you notice more as you gain experience. Patience is a good point too. I find a comfy chair does wonders as well :-)

4 hours ago, StarSapling said:

Excellent report!  I've been making a point not to do too much pre-research of objects I've not observed before, except for location and visual magnitude.  Later, after the observation, I do more detailed research on the objects observed.  I often find that detail I wasn't completely sure of at the scope is there in posted images and sketches.  But, occasionally, I still get fooled by wishful thinking.

I'm now torn on whether to research the target before I observe it. I find there's a also a real appeal in knowing just what you're looking at. I think your post above is spot on StarSapling. Seems a very good approach.

 

1 hour ago, Linda said:

Using the iPad during observation is also not a good idea, because it ruins my night vision. Maybe in a red plastic folder... I also dislike electronics outside, because it can create hassle...

I've fallen into the technology trap, with an almost unused printed star map gathering dust on my shelf. I've always assumed/hoped that shutting and covering my observing eye while looking at my phone (in red night vision mode) would be not affect my night vision in my observing eye. No idea whether that's right or not though... :-)

[Piero]

Very interesting. I also wondered about my observations with my TV60. For certain objects (e.g. globulars) it's 'easier', in the sense that if you gently move your telescope, you can see the faint blob moving too. This was the case for NGC6229 in Hercules. Instead I struggle with faint nebulosity placed near stars. For instance I always wonder whether I perceive that little amount of nebulosity near the stars at North and South of M42/M43. I think to see them every time, even when I move the star out of the field, but I am also aware that they are much fainter than M42. So, is this because I am quite young, or I have "good eye", or I relax my eye properly, or I simply make this up??

In the end of the day, I would like to publish my results in Nature or Science, but certainly not my observation reports. So, I think what it matters is that we enjoy what we do. Eventually, after watching a certain target time to time and reading a bit about it, it becomes quite clear whether the observation has some basis or is just part of our imagination. 

[Linda]

If you observe from a dark sky, your observation might be more than just imagination.

[Pondus]

Bit late posting this (awhile since thread started), but this, and Your former post - sameish topic, was a highly interesting read  indeed. Had  the exact same feel about M1 as you described in the o.p of first post. I`ve definitely learned something Reading Your posts, thanks!

You reports are very good and highly  interesting read .

Regards

Rune

[todd8137]

Welcome to astronomy  some time you see no detail ,and some times you do ,you seem let down by what you are seeing  how long did you spend on each target try these targets again on another night,this last week with the bright moon washing every thing out for me I just stuck to doubles and the brighter targets 

pat

[Paul M]

Great report. A real adventure!

Some of the greatest observers had no pre-knowledge of the things they discovered, a-la-Messier. Great skies, relatively poor instruments but impressive observing skill.

Observing is only partly aided by visual acuity. As I said numerous times in beginner's threads, stop faffing with technicalities until you have learned how to look. How to focus the telescope. How to use averted vision. How to control your breathing so as to prevent your pulse affecting your steadiness. And how to relax and take time to see what is right before your eyes!

Polar alignment to the n^th degree, level tripods and poxy setting circles add nothing to what you can see and will see if you want to just by pointing the scope and looking!

[Size9Hex]

18 hours ago, Pondus said:

Bit late posting this (awhile since thread started), but this, and Your former post - sameish topic, was a highly interesting read  indeed. Had  the exact same feel about M1 as you described in the o.p of first post. I`ve definitely learned something Reading Your posts, thanks!

You reports are very good and highly  interesting read .

Thanks for the kind words Rune! It's good to know other folks are having similar experiences! Don't learn too much from me though; My experience is measured in months! Others here can count years or even decades

14 minutes ago, todd8137 said:

Welcome to astronomy  some time you see no detail ,and some times you do ,you seem let down by what you are seeing  how long did you spend on each target try these targets again on another. Night this last week with the bright moon washing every thing out for me I just stuck to doubles and the brighter targets 

Thanks Pat. There's no real disappointment in what I'm seeing, although now I think about it. I think I did write "hoped to see" a few times (or similar) which maybe conveys it more negatively than I intended. Quite the opposite; I'm frequently astonished at what's possible to see with simple metal tube and a mirror! Any wish for more detail on M1 for example, is outweighed by the amazement of being able to just nip out into the garden and see a supernova in the first place

I spend between a minute and an hour on a target depending on how it inspires me and much more I think it has to offer. Easy doubles might get a quick look and a tick in the book, while I've lost hours (not that it felt like it at the time!) on the likes of Jupiter, the moon, the Eskimo, and a few others.

1 minute ago, Paul M said:

Great report. A real adventure!

Some of the greatest observers had no pre-knowledge of the things they discovered, a-la-Messier. Great skies, relatively poor instruments but impressive observing skill.

Observing is only partly aided by visual acuity. As I said numerous times in beginner's threads, stop faffing with technicalities until you have learned how to look. How to focus the telescope. How to use averted vision. How to control your breathing so as to prevent your pulse affecting your steadiness. And how to relax and take time to see what is right before your eyes!

Polar alignment to the n^th degree, level tripods and poxy setting circles add nothing to what you can see and will see if you want to just by pointing the scope and looking!

Thanks! Definitely agree with you on this. My kit is very capable, but definitely at the simple, low tech, no gimmicks end of the spectrum which I'm happy with! Complexity would be a hinderance to me I think. I see more with it now than I did a few months ago, and it's exactly what you say - learning to look (and collimation too to be fair!). This forum was a revalation in the early days (still is to be honest), in that other folks were seeing so much more than me with similar kit in similar conditions.

[estwing]

yes the views tend to differ night to night...even hour to hour!...I've caught M51 spirals in a 12" on good nights and not in my 18" on others...and I must say NGC 891 is a stonker when conditions are good....http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1205/NGC891-Subaru-HST-LL.jpg

[Size9Hex]

55 minutes ago, estwing said:

yes the views tend to differ night to night...even hour to hour!...I've caught M51 spirals in a 12" on good nights and not in my 18" on others...and I must say NGC 891 is a stonker when conditions are good....http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1205/NGC891-Subaru-HST-LL.jpg

Wow! I can say with certainty I did not see anything like that!

[niallk]

Just saw this thread + great report! I often pre-google sketches of new targets which have been done with similar aperture.  I like your approach of doing a 'blind test' for observing details

I definitely agree with the idea that you 'learn to see' over time. The first time I saw M42 I wasn't even sure if it was my breath on the EP. Now I always see it in a strong green colour, with wonderful structure & detail in the same 10" scope.

[laudropb]

Very interesting report. Do you always take notes as you observe. I ask this because I have found that I " see " more when I do and like you I have found that what I have  " seen " often checks out later research. I think note taking has a large effect on my observing.

[Size9Hex]

11 hours ago, laudropb said:

Very interesting report. Do you always take notes as you observe. I ask this because I have found that I " see " more when I do and like you I have found that what I have  " seen " often checks out later research. I think note taking has a large effect on my observing.

Thanks. Interesting comment. It's nice to hear your experiences of it. Definitely agree about seeing more when taking notes. I sometimes take notes, sometimes not, but after this I'm inclined to take notes more often. It definitely helps clarify what you see. On the other hand, sometimes just having a nice relaxing look around, and not worrying about it is enjoyable too :-)