I am confused about stars

[Corkeyno2]

I have a Celestron Nexstar 4SE with 212x the light gathering ability of the human eye, a 4 inch aperture and very flexible magnification. I live in a kind of light polluted area. I have seen the images that my scope is capable of, but when I try it out for myself they are nothing like I expected. Has anyone got any advice or tips? They will be greatly appreciated. (Please don't tell me about magnification being too high, because I get that all the time!)

Thanks,

Corkey

[Freddie]

What you see in images is completely different to what you will see with your eye. The images will be from long exposures that have been processed to enhance them. You would be better off reading observing reports or looking at sketches to get a feel for what you will see through your scope.

[Knighty2112]

Be very carefully with the images you may see in magazines, and on the boxes of some telescope manufacturers. Sadly, apart from images of the larger planets and the moon, most other objects won't look much like the objects that you may have seen nice images of. M31 for instance is a large cloudy blob in the sky, and unless you have a really good scope and equipment, super dark skies and the most ideal seeing conditions you are not going to see any of the structure of the spiral arms at all.

Same goes for most other objects too (except perhaps the brighter globular clusters that can stand quite a high magnification), so don't expect most of what you see on the printed page etc to be visible in the sky to that degree. The light from most of these objects is too weak to register in out eyes, and the images you do see mostly are composed of long exposure times built up and stacked over many hours in some cases.

Here are two images of M31: the first is a long exposure built up by the camera over time to reveal details and structures in the spiral arms of M31. The second image is more likely a representation of what your eye would actually see on a good night. Note: the second one is not at the same magnification as the first image, so also appears smaller too because of this.

 

[Stu]

Corkey, give this a read to see if it helps you....

 

[Corkeyno2]

32 minutes ago, Freddie said:

What you see in images is completely different to what you will see with your eye. The images will be from long exposures that have been processed to enhance them. You would be better off reading observing reports or looking at sketches to get a feel for what you will see through your scope.

Thats very helpful thanks

[Corkeyno2]

Thanks

 

[Dave In Vermont]

Do you have Stellarium installed on a computer, or similar, yet? It can be set to show you what you'd bee through your telescope and eyepieces. Quite accurately shown. If you're not familiar with Stellarium yet - let us know. I'd be happy to send you a link and links for instructions.

Stellarium is an excellent planetarium-program which will show you your nighttime sky in full details of whatever kinds of things interest you - or everything. Similat software can cost you upwards of £150 - or more - while Stellarium is totally free of charge.

Let us know, please -

Dave

[Aaron F Johnson]

Every time I share my scope with a newbi or novice I ask them to describe the object and it's detail and almost always they discribe much less detail than I see. I have been seeing for many decades and have very well trained eyes that dark adapt in sometimes as little as ten minutes and it's disappointing when I share a view I think is impressive and the viewer seems less than enthused. But one thing I rarely see mentioned here is the art of seeing. An applied learning that only comes with time and experience. Sure programes that show you about what you will see are a good gauge for expectation but assuming you will not see better with experience I disagree. Give it time, seeing varies day to day and place to place and don't squint one eye while using the other cover the other with your hand my father used to use an eyepatch. If objects are too bright dim them with a filter and averted vision can be used on planets as well as dso if they are dim enough. Pay attention to detail in the photos you see here on SGL and elsewhere and commit object detail to memory, you won't see it if you don't recognize it as part of the scene. The eyes can be tricked easily and there are many graphics online that depict how easily we don't see things as the eyes are decieved daily and we aren't even aware. Give it time and practice you will never see objects as well as you should unless you do.

[rockystar]

some good comments from Aaron there and a working example of this: I was at a dark site with some other astronomers, looking at the Leo triplet, I could easily see 2 of them but not the other. A more experienced eye had a look and said yes, it's there. Another look by me: nothing. He then started to talk me through where it was and what I was looking for and after a good 10 minutes of back and forth, I eventually saw it.

I took 2 things away from this, 1) keep looking, have patience, and it may just reveal itself, 2) an experienced eye is a valuable thing.

[Stu]

Good comments indeed, and very valid. @Aaron F Johnson, the only point I would disagree with is that actually there is plenty of advice on SGL about the need to learn how to observe, and to spend time at the eyepiece teasing out detail.

I consider myself an experienced observer, but don't spend that much time at dark sites, I'm more planetary and doubles than DSO mainly due to opportunity (or lack of it). Observing the Crescent Nebula some time back with Steve (Swamp Thing), in two scopes (14" and 16") it was clear that he was seeing detail that I wasn't. I've no idea if it was experience or simply eye sensitivity, but the difference was there.

One of my frustrations is when I show new people objects in the scope; it could be the moon, a planet or DSO and they invariably take a 5 second look and say 'oh that's nice', without adjusting focus or spending nearly enough time to start to see the detail. I try to encourage them to take time, some do, some don't.

Dark adaptation, sky conditions, scope collimation and cooling, focus, time at the eyepiece, experience. They all make a big difference to what you see, I agree!

[ronin]

The marketing idea is that they put a 200hr hubble image on the box and people hope or expect to see that. It just doesn't work out that way. Some put Spitzer and Chancra images on and those are in Infra-Red and X-ray which we do not see at all.

This appeared a while back and sums it up well: http://bigtelescope.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/christmas-and-telescopes-how-to-avoid.html

Just scroll down half a page to the first image of M42, Orion Nebula. If marketing put the first image on there is a chance you will buy it, it they put the second (more realistic one) you would buy someone elses.

To identify objects I find it useful to start up stellarium, press f/4 then set the DSO limit to Mag 6 and apply it. All the dim ones disappear. Assuming the Date and Time are set then I just set the dispay for South to be displayed and write down a few of the objects and the constellation they are in. Don't go making up a list of 20 or 30, try 4 or 6 objects, just makes life more relaxed and a greater chance of completing them. Work out with the little symbols in Stellarium mean, you may want to select say just Globular Clusters. 4SE should be reasonable on them.

Always check the West side with Stellarium as something may be disappearing and you might want it before it goes. East is less of a concern as they are coming up and will in general get better to observe.

Get down to a Wilkinsons and buy a couple of their 25-30p notebooks, write the objects and constellation on a page and off you go.

Advise you to keep magnification in mind, soon 2 "standard" objects will appear at a convenient time: M42 and M45, your scope should be good on either. Each are generally taken as about 1 degree in size. So to see all of either you need the magnification to determine the field of view. To get either one in fully you want the object plus a surround so say 2 degrees. If you want a 2 degree field from a 60 degree eyepiece you need a magnification of 30x.

What eyepieces have you got, a good eyepiece makes a big difference, the 4SE being "slow" does not need vastly costly eyepieces, but it likely does need some reasonable ones.

[Aaron F Johnson]

The gentleman asked for tips and tricks and boy is he getting them now...SGL ROCKS !!!

[Knighty2112]

There have been many a time when I have just observed one object alone for over an hour or so. Sometimes this may be to observe the transit of a moons shadow across the face of Jupiter, or sometimes just observing a globular cluster or Galaxy. This may sound silly to spend that time on just single objects, however this can be more rewarding sometimes than when trying to cram in lots of different objects. As Stu said, you do need to learn to look at some objects for quite a while to get more details coming out from them. Also, as seeing conditions can change quite quickly too you may also get a great seeing window open up whilst observing, so that the object is even more detailed as well.

Sure, we can't always spend a large amount of time observing like this always, however it is necessary to do and also to be able to train yourself and your eye to do this. As the saying goes "sometimes less is more!"  

[Corkeyno2]

12 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

Do you have Stellarium installed on a computer, or similar, yet? It can be set to show you what you'd bee through your telescope and eyepieces. Quite accurately shown. If you're not familiar with Stellarium yet - let us know. I'd be happy to send you a link and links for instructions.

Stellarium is an excellent planetarium-program which will show you your nighttime sky in full details of whatever kinds of things interest you - or everything. Similat software can cost you upwards of £150 - or more - while Stellarium is totally free of charge.

Let us know, please -

Dave

Thanks

Please send me a link about stellarium, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Stu]

Here you go:

http://stellarium.org

If you have a smartphone then there are plenty of planetarium apps for those. I use SkySafari which does cost, but I think it's the best one there is. Plenty of free ones though.

[Cornelius Varley]

http://www.stellarium.org/

[Corkeyno2]

9 hours ago, Aaron F Johnson said:

Every time I share my scope with a newbi or novice I ask them to describe the object and it's detail and almost always they discribe much less detail than I see. I have been seeing for many decades and have very well trained eyes that dark adapt in sometimes as little as ten minutes and it's disappointing when I share a view I think is impressive and the viewer seems less than enthused. But one thing I rarely see mentioned here is the art of seeing. An applied learning that only comes with time and experience. Sure programes that show you about what you will see are a good gauge for expectation but assuming you will not see better with experience I disagree. Give it time, seeing varies day to day and place to place and don't squint one eye while using the other cover the other with your hand my father used to use an eyepatch. If objects are too bright dim them with a filter and averted vision can be  easily and there are many graphics online that depict how easily we don't see things as the eyes are decieved daily and we aren't even aware. Give it time and practice you will never see objects as well as you should unless you do.

thaanks

 

[psamathe]

Globular Clusters.  Fantastic targets for seeing something dramatic.  e.g. M13

Ian

[Stu]

Have a look at this thread too. Beat in mind that these sketches were done by an experienced observer with larger scopes (up to 16") and under generally dark or very dark skies.

The book Turn left at Orion is also very useful for understanding what you can see, and how to find it

[Dave In Vermont]

Here's a Cut & Paste for a link, which you now have, and also instructions - both on the net in Wiki as new settings and functions are added almost daily - one of the developers is a member here - and a nearly up-to-date Pdf. for you to download and keep. I'll finish with a screenshot of how mine is currently set-up. Mine is quite advanced, yours will be ready for you to decide what all you wish it to show you.

By the way, a new version is due to be out for download on July 31st. So you might wish to wait a few days before proceeding. Or not.

Dave

On this link is the main page for downloading Stellarium. Choose which version is correct for your computer. Here you go:

http://www.stellarium.org/
 
As for instructions, the most current one's are posted in Wiki due to there being new features & functions being created almost daily. There is also a Pdf. that's almost up-to-date, absolutely enough 'up-to-date' in all needed ways. Here's the Wiki-Link:
 
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/Stellarium_User_Guide
 
And the Pdf. is here:
 
http://barry.sarcasmogerdes.com/stellarium/stellarium_user_guide-new.pdf

 

Click on image for larger size.