Visual only Astronomy?

[Moonshane]

Go for it! I have been practising a new (to me) method loaned from @mikedknight for planetary imaging on cloudy nights while my wife is marking school books. I am redoing some of my early efforts.

Original

Redone

[DeepSkyBagger]

On 14/01/2017 at 02:28, goodricke1 said:

My images will never win a prize but... they are unique, one moment in the history of time preserved indefinitely. At that instant no one else in the Universe is recording that particular object from exactly the same perspective; those photons striking that chip constitute a miniscule snapshot of eternity that can never again be perfectly replicated. And that is why imaging is superior to visual in my view.

When I make a visual observation, I know that very few people, or more likely nobody, is looking at that object at that moment, especially if it's some small, faint, unsung galaxy that imagers will never bother with as they fall over themselves to image M33 again and again and again. At that instant, no one else is looking at it. My view of that object is MY view. An image cannot be perfectly replicated, but close enough that no one can see the difference. My observation will never be replicated because it's what I saw with my eyes at that moment. For me, it's not, to quote goodricke1 'photons striking that chip', it's light entering my eye.

The images that appear here and elsewhere are truly breathtaking and I do not disparage imagers at all, and although I have never imaged Stephan's Quintet, I have SEEN it. My record of it may not have the precision or the detail of a deep image, but on the night I made this observation, I made observations of 27 galaxies. And that, for me, is why I will always be a visual observer.

As Damian said: Each to their own.

[StarryEyed]

21 hours ago, DeepSkyBagger said:

When I make a visual observation, I know that very few people, or more likely nobody, is looking at that object at that moment, especially if it's some small, faint, unsung galaxy that imagers will never bother with as they fall over themselves to image M33 again and again and again. At that instant, no one else is looking at it. 

Brian Cox said something in one of his shows about "alien photons from a star striking your eye and the eyes of aliens looking up at their sun" This got me excited at the fact that I might be sharing photons with aliens everytime I look at a star. Silly as some might see this it made me realise that it is the experience of seeing that is different to the change if perspective that imaging brings. One is an outerbody experience while the other is an inner body experience.

I see this also in the need for peolple to risk it all in a short rocket trip with virgin but also in the love that exists for the Hubble telescope. Both do/will have an impact on people on a personal level.

I think we need to try everything its in our nature and what keeps us moving forward. 

[goodricke1]

Plenty of valid points by the visual constituency above but, when all is said and done, most who embark on a dream hoilday would take at least a few snaps to remember it by!

[iPeace]

3 hours ago, goodricke1 said:

Plenty of valid points by the visual constituency above but, when all is said and done, most who embark on a dream hoilday would take at least a few snaps to remember it by!

Indeed. By comparison, astrophotography seems more like embarking on such a holiday for the sole purpose of getting the pictures.

And many do! And many end up with the exact same pictures as everyone else.

All perfectly valid; collecting pictures is as worthwhile a pastime as any.

Can't help but feel that AP and visual are so very different as to make any real comparison, well, if not pointless, then something akin.

[cloudsweeper]

9 hours ago, goodricke1 said:

Plenty of valid points by the visual constituency above but, when all is said and done, most who embark on a dream hoilday would take at least a few snaps to remember it by!

Hmmmm.......a celestial snap with me and the missus right there, in it - now that would  be interesting!

Doug.

[iPeace]

1 minute ago, cloudsweeper said:

Hmmmm.......a celestial snap with me and the missus right there, in it - now that would  be interesting!

Doug.

Don't see many selfies by imagers here...

[Roy Challen]

7 hours ago, iPeace said:

Indeed. By comparison, astrophotography seems more like embarking on such a holiday for the sole purpose of getting the pictures.

I go on holiday with the sole intention of getting some unpolluted visual done

[DeepSkyBagger]

On 22/01/2017 at 22:29, goodricke1 said:

Plenty of valid points by the visual constituency above but, when all is said and done, most who embark on a dream hoilday would take at least a few snaps to remember it by!

True, but you tend to take pictures of things you've seen so that you can remember what they looked like. Taking an image of a deep-sky object is like visiting a beautiful place and buying a postcard of places you weren't allowed to go. Interesting, but hardly memories.

[Moonshane]

There’s room for everyone in the hobby and make of it what you will. Do whatever makes you happy or happiest, that might be more than one aspect.

Technically although I am strictly visual, I do try to sketch the new things that I see, as well as planets and solar features (soon the moon as well if I can) and then compare what I think I was seeing. Without the imagers, it would be more difficult to make online comparisons and therefore I am grateful to them for taking the trouble to use their skills.

In sketching, I suppose I am ‘imaging’ albeit in a very basic way and undoubtedly with some artistic licence! Therefore, I cross over both avenues in a way and so what?

[David Levi]

The imagers seems to be getting a pasting in this thread. Perhaps they should start their own thread "Imaging only Astronomy" in the Imaging - Discussion forum. They might fair a bit better playing at home . @clarkpm4242 you should go for that new thread "Starhopping vs. Goto". That won't cause much of a kerfuffle .

[Knight of Clear Skies]

11 minutes ago, DeepSkyBagger said:

True, but you tend to take pictures of things you've seen so that you can remember what they looked like. Taking an image of a deep-sky object is like visiting a beautiful place and buying a postcard of places you weren't allowed to go. Interesting, but hardly memories.

The analogy is breaking down here - you can't go to the places you see through your scope either.  Perhaps visual is like peering out the window of an airliner over a foreign country, while imaging is using a helicopter equipped with a searchlight. But both visual and imaging have this in common: whatever is seen is only an aspect of the underlying reality, a snapshot in visible wavelengths of incomprehensibly vast objects evolving over unfathomable timescales.

 

[Moonshane]

Imaging is a construct of the processing. Visual is a construct of your brain. Neither can be accurate, they are 'best representations' of what is actually there.

[Alan White]

This thread was not posted to start a rift or a pasting for either discipline, honest.
Being fair I don't think it has.
What it has shown is that these are multiple strands of the astronomy hobby, all valid, all enjoyable.
No one is right or wrong, they are astronomers with differing interests, just like all things in life.

 

[StarryEyed]

A telescope is a tool for the eye. So is a camera. Its rather silly to promote one over the other. Variable star work encourages both visual and imaging. But the advantages of one over the other are clear. Whats more out of focus stars a requirement.  You might say that variable star work is the only truly scientific work amature astronomers can under take, (that's not true of course) and visual and imaging is just for casual astronomers.

I like making the odd observation and submitting it to the AAVSO its one little bit of data that will out live me and remain useful. I am a part of a light curve. As much as visual and imaging goes they are my memories and my photo album and I have those too, but they will no doubt will be lost with me. Though I did upload all my images to google.

 

[mapstar]

11 minutes ago, StarryEyed said:

A telescope is a tool for the eye. So is a camera. Its rather silly to promote one over the other. Variable star work encourages both visual and imaging. But the advantages of one over the other are clear. Whats more out of focus stars a requirement.  You might say that variable star work is the only truly scientific work amature astronomers can under take, (that's not true of course) and visual and imaging is just for casual astronomers.

I like making the odd observation and submitting it to the AAVSO its one little bit of data that will out live me and remain useful. I am a part of a light curve. As much as visual and imaging goes they are my memories and my photo album and I have those too, but they will no doubt will be lost with me. Though I did upload all my images to google.

 

Leslie.C.Peltier was an avid amateur observer for the AAVSO and mentioned many of his reports in his book starlight nights.

He contributed for many years with his reports (more than 100,000 of them) using a 2", 6" and 12" refractor.

A true observing giant and one that is remembered with an award. 

He also had other interests one of which was photography. 

[Paul M]

I actually think that naked eye (spectacles allowed, as they only correct not enhance) observing is under represented.

So all the Dob, GEM, Newt, frac, mak and cat mobs should but out too

Oh. hold on, I'm in a couple of those groups....

 

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, mapstar said:

Leslie.C.Peltier was an avid amateur observer for the AAVSO and mentioned many of his reports in his book starlight nights.

He contributed for many years with his reports (more than 100,000 of them) using a 2", 6" and 12" refractor.

A true observing giant and one that is remembered with an award. 

He also had other interests one of which was photography. 

And don't forget his 4" Mogey refractor pictured on the front cover of the original Starlight Nights. Peltier is my all time astronomical hero, if ever such an individual could exist. Every visual observer should read his amazing book. If Starlight Nights doesn't cause a person's heart to burn with enthusiasm, then they are dead inside!

Mike

 

[John]

When I was really into angling, back in the 1970's, the activity was divided into a number of camps, eg: sea, coarse, game, and then sub-divisions within those such as match anglers, specimen hunters, etc, etc. There was quite a bit of friction between some of these groups for quite a few years through the angling press. Meanwhile, while these internal disputes and debates went on, poor farming and industrial practices gradually polluted the canals, rivers, lakes, and coastal seas and eventually the angling community started to realise that they were in danger of loosing fish stocks and access to waters and this affected all the branches of angling. So rather belatedly they started to work together more and made progress in reversing at least some of the damage done.

Without a reasonable availability of dark sky and decent seeing conditions most aspects of our hobby will become very difficult or impossible to pursue whatever method you choose to adopt. Discussions like this are fun but having met and spent time with imagers, sketchers, gazers and those who are simply interested in the skies I reckon we have very many common interests and very little in the way of differences

If we can spread awareness, interest and our enthusiasm as far and wide as we can, through showing others, sharing info and tips, talking to the media when we get a chance, writing articles and genereally showing how much fun and how fascinating astronomy is, we might help keep some of the threats at bay, I hope 

 

 

 

[mapstar]

20 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

And don't forget his 4" Mogey refractor pictured on the front cover of the original Starlight Nights. Peltier is my all time astronomical hero, if ever such an individual could exist. Every visual observer should read his amazing book. If Starlight Nights doesn't cause a person's heart to burn with enthusiasm, then they are dead inside!

Mike

 

 

Ah yes the 4" it's been a while since I read it. I have the book with the cover on the left above. 

It wasn't the read I thought it would be, it is a journey through many years of adventures.

An enjoyable read and a book that sits on the shelf holding its own with the rest of my tomes.

 

[StarryEyed]

Equipment comes and goes but we hang on to books for no good reason. Then again maybe forgetting about them and rereading them says I with the 1978 yearbook of astronomy as an avatar. I refound this last December. 

I needed to read more. Starlight nights is on the list.

[Alan White]

7 hours ago, John said:

When I was really into angling, back in the 1970's, the activity was divided into a number of camps, eg: sea, coarse, game, and then sub-divisions within those such as match anglers, specimen hunters, etc, etc. There was quite a bit of friction between some of these groups for quite a few years through the angling press. Meanwhile, while these internal disputes and debates went on, poor farming and industrial practices gradually polluted the canals, rivers, lakes, and coastal seas and eventually the angling community started to realise that they were in danger of loosing fish stocks and access to waters and this affected all the branches of angling. So rather belatedly they started to work together more and made progress in reversing at least some of the damage done.

Without a reasonable availability of dark sky and decent seeing conditions most aspects of our hobby will become very difficult or impossible to pursue whatever method you choose to adopt. Discussions like this are fun but having met and spent time with imagers, sketchers, gazers and those who are simply interested in the skies I reckon we have very many common interests and very little in the way of differences

If we can spread awareness, interest and our enthusiasm as far and wide as we can, through showing others, sharing info and tips, talking to the media when we get a chance, writing articles and genereally showing how much fun and how fascinating astronomy is, we might help keep some of the threats at bay, I hope 

 

 

 

Fully agree John, nice analogy.

 

[StarryEyed]

18 hours ago, StarryEyed said:

 

I needed to read more. Starlight nights is on the list.

Well its off the list at least in paperback form ￡457.00 on amazon. ￡7.99 on a kindle.

I found the reason for keeping books!

[clarkpm4242]

Deep Sky Wonders - Walter Scott Houston

An excellent anthology of S&T articles!

Again seems a bit of a collectors item...I have a copy

Cheers

Paul

[mikeDnight]

20 hours ago, StarryEyed said:

Well its off the list at least in paperback form ￡457.00 on amazon. ￡7.99 on a kindle.

I found the reason for keeping books!

That's unbelievable!  

You may be able to get it from your local library, if such a thing still exists. 

Mike