AP vs Visual astronomy

[BeerMe]

I didn't want to hijack tomato's excellent thread on the joys of visual astronomy so I thought I'd make a separate thread about something that's intrigued me for a while.  As a purely visual person, I'm interested what it was that got people down the road of AP.

I dabbled a little with photography and developing when I was a kid, but as much as I appreciate a great photo whether for its beauty or, in some cases its timing, I've never had the inclination to push it further.  Does anyone think there may have to be a predisposition to photography to pursue the hobby of astrophotography as opposed to visual astronomy?  Has anyone here gone in to the astrophotography side without previously having an interest in cameras and such?

As so eloquently described by tomato, that wonder of knowing that photons from a galaxy far, far away is actually being received through my little 5" scope and in to my own eyes, even if it just a smudge of light, is more than I ever expected for the outlay when I got in to this.  It's mind-bogglingly incomprehensible if I think about it too much, and I do.  As much as I try not to...

Also, If money was no object would you go for a 40"+ Dob behemoth, or [insert premium AP rig here]?

 

[Charic]

Ive got the books, I'm learning and have a little knowledge about the subject, but not sure where or when if ever I get into proper astro-photography.

I would need equipment better suited to the task, and better skies?  Visually I have some of the darkest skies, when conditions allow, during the Winter Months, and constant twi-light for the remainder of the Year, no good, I assume for DSO astro-photography.

I too was a very keen 35mm photographer  in my earlier Years with my FP4 film and my  own darkroom, then with the advent of digital, now anyone can produce an image. I'm not to keen with all the processing and manipulation with modern day images, especially here with astronomy,  to take 100's if not thousands of images and  manipulate them into one final image is not natural, its processed far beyond what the camera and the  user actually sees, but I do understand the process and the why, in order to see out nebulas. One day I may regret this text, but for now, astro-photography (proper) is a long way off for me.

 

[ollypenrice]

OK, I'll be totally honest (for the first time in public!) on how I got into AP from visual. I had set up an astro guest house and was finding that I had very few visual types visiting, but lots of folks bringing AP gear of their own to use at our site. I decided that I had to learn what it was all about, but I was frankly reluctant. It seemed like a royal palaver. Ahem, until I saw the first sub of M42 come down the spout of our old Genesis onto the chip of an Atik 16HR. Whaaaat????  I simply could not believe it. Suddenly the unobservable was observable. The Horsehead? There it was. Etc Etc.

Now some will say that this is not observing, and I understand that because such was my opinion as well. But now my cameras are my eyes and I love pulling information out of the sky which has never been seen in any eyepiece and probably never will be, the laws of physics being intransigent things.

But I'll have none of 'either/or.' Once the cameras, mounts, guiders etc are doing what they should (which often takes less than 48 hours of continous swearing to acheive...) pass me the bins while I wait for my turn at the Dob.

lly

[Floater]

Good question, Paul. I shall watch with interest ...

[saac]

I never really had any prior interest in photography beyond the usual family photographs etc.  I enjoy both visual and AP, just at the foothills of AP at the moment. I enjoy the technical challenge presented by AP and, similar to Olly, I enjoy the kick I get when I pull an image from data I've captured.  Seeing my first AP image of Andromeda gave me the same wow moment when I first saw Saturn visually. I guess coming at all of this from an engineering background I don't have any philosophical concerns as to whether what I'm doing is observing or not.  It is what it is and I enjoy doing both.

Jim

 

[Peter Drew]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

OK, I'll be totally honest (for the first time in public!) on how I got into AP from visual. I had set up an astro guest house and was finding that I had very few visual types visiting, but lots of folks bringing AP gear of their own to use at our site. I decided that I had to learn what it was all about, but I was frankly reluctant. It seemed like a royal palaver. Ahem, until I saw the first sub of M42 come down the spout of our old Genesis onto the chip of an Atik 16HR. Whaaaat????  I simply could not believe it. Suddenly the unobservable was observable. The Horehead? There it was. Etc Etc.

Now some will say that this is not observing, and I understand that because such was my opinion as well. But now my cameras are my eyes and I love pulling information out of the sky which has never been seen in any eyepiece and probably never will be, the laws of physics being intransigent things.

But I'll have none of 'either/or.' Once the cameras, mounts, guiders etc are doing what they should (which often takes less than 48 hours of continous swearing to acheive...) pass me the bins while I wait for my turn at the Dob.

lly

Line 4) Olly?   

[DaveS]

Good question.

My interest in both astronomy and photography goes so far back that I'm not sure now which came first, or maybe they came together. When I built my first big-ish 'scope I had intended to be able to put an SLR on it and made the focus mechanism beefy enough to take one. What scuppered my plans was trying to devise a suitable clock drive. That and frustration with the LP in London (Ironically less than now) caused me to pretty well abandon astronomy for over 20 years.

Meanwhile I was still pursuing and working on my photography, moving up the formats from 35mm, through 6x7, 5x4 and ending with 10x8, with most of my personal work concentrating on medium and large format B&W, developing, printing and toning with selenium in my own darkroom, equipped with a wall-mount 5x4 DeVere 54 and Ilford multigrade head. The only reason I'm not still doing wet photography is that I no longer have a darkroom due to space constraints. Perhaps when I make my final move I'll have room for a darkroom again.

When I took up digital it was only natural to have a go at replicating what I had done with 35mm reversal film in the late '80s. Oh dear. That was enough, the fire was rekindled. I bought the Megrez 90 and HEQ5 that I still have then added a little DSLR and started down a path leading inexorably to the kit in my sig. I'm just now getting the 180 Mak back into action so I can do some visual while the computer gets on with the real work.

So, 40" Dob or killer AP rig? The latter, definitely, but not excluding a pretty good visual rig as well.

[John]

I used to be interested in photography during the 35mm era but I kind of lost interest when digital came along. Apart from holiday snaps.

I've been observing for around 35 years or so now but I've not done more than dabble in a bit of lunar and planetary webcamming, with little in the way of results.

I prefer very "low tech" aproach to scopes (ie: manually driven, alt-az mounts) so that does not lend itself to imaging and I've no particular drive to try.

I do really like to see the results of imagers though and I'm full of admiration for what they do and how they do it

I'll stick to visual observations though.

[RichLD]

With AP, every time feels like the first time for me - the first sub that appears on the screen (especially after plate solving a target in NB) gives me that wonderful and unique buzz that all of us who practice this dark art know so well. 

After I know that my target's framed correctly, focus is on the money and my guiding's good, out come the bins for the visual thrills 

As much as my route into AP was through visual, I'd have to say that I love the faff of imaging, all the toys and the planning that has to go into it under UK skies, especially travelling to a dark site with a dual rig.

I must be a bit of a masochist!

[laudropb]

Nice post Paul. This is something I have often pondered myself. On my recent visit to France I took the opertunity to try my hand at some DSO imaging. Nothing fancy, just a couple of my favourite observing targets, M101 and the Leo triplet. I used the set up in the obsy at Astrofarm  but captured with my Canon 1300 D. While the process was going on I was out under the dark skies using a Dob and 120 Ed frac and generally enjoying myself.

After stacking and applying darks I was truely amazed at the images I had. I have to agree with Jim a definite wow moment. I brought all the data collected by me home and then came the painful bit....... processing the images. I am just not a computer person, but I persevered and continue to tweak them on a daily basis. My family and friends think they are amazing, but I can see they are not in the same class as the images posted on here.

So would I now consider crossing to the dark side ? Probably not. I don't have dark enough skies here and I still enjoy the visual aspect of our hobby more. Perhaps if the wife let me build an obsy of my own and I could easily combine both but there is little chance of that. My wife enjoys our lovely garden too much.

[johnfosteruk]

I don't think I can say anything as eloquent as others have and will say but I think the two go together, visual is about exploration, new frontiers (if only new to me with my amateur equipment, although there's plenty to discover, outbursts, comets and NEOs, SNs etc), as Astro Imp said in Tomato's thread seeing something that a large portion of the human race hadn't, new skills and knowledge (physics/cosmology, sketching), sheer wonderment/realising my place in the universe and much much more

AP is about those same things, as Olly said his cameras are just another pair of eyes, capable of capturing more detail. The professionals today use imaging devices for the same reasons Herschel and Messier and the rest of the band used their eyes and apply the same study and research to the results. We as amateurs take the same from the images as we do at the eyepiece, just more of it.

11 hours ago, BeerMe said:

Also, If money was no object would you go for a 60"+ Dob behemoth, or [A big RC on a Mesu, full set of NB filters, big RORO obsy, nice warm room with pc running SGP]?

If money was no object, both, because after all money is no object. SGP should let me (after a few days faffing about with uncooperative gear no doubt!!) set it all going then go outside to enjoy the views.

[oobydooby]

I think astro photography, for DAS members is an essential part of our outreach work.

There is nothing worse than having a group at an event where clouds are ever present.  In such cases a rich supply of pictures show what they might expect to see or photograph if they take up astronomy as a hobby.

[ollypenrice]

9 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

Line 4) Olly?   

Thank you Peter (and Charic)! 

lly

[Guest]

11 hours ago, BeerMe said:

I didn't want to hijack tomato's excellent thread on the joys of visual astronomy so I thought I'd make a separate thread about something that's intrigued me for a while.  As a purely visual person, I'm interested what it was that got people down the road of AP.

I dabbled a little with photography and developing when I was a kid, but as much as I appreciate a great photo whether for its beauty or, in some cases its timing, I've never had the inclination to push it further.  Does anyone think there may have to be a predisposition to photography to pursue the hobby of astrophotography as opposed to visual astronomy?  Has anyone here gone in to the astrophotography side without previously having an interest in cameras and such?

As so eloquently described by tomato, that wonder of knowing that photons from a galaxy far, far away is actually being received through my little 5" scope and in to my own eyes, even if it just a smudge of light, is more than I ever expected for the outlay when I got in to this.  It's mind-bogglingly incomprehensible if I think about it too much, and I do.  As much as I try not to...

Also, If money was no object would you go for a 40"+ Dob behemoth, or [insert premium AP rig here]?

Would it be possible to post a link to tomato's post on "The Joys of Visual Astronomy" please

[PhobosPhil]

At time of writing, it's 2 posts below this one.

 

[BeerMe]

Some excellent replies from both sides, thanks for the input everyone :-)

@Grumpy Martian good shout, I'll edit the OP to include the link.

@saac bang goes my theory then ;-)  the technical side of AP is what scares me the most (well no...the cost scares me the most but if cost was irrelevant then yes, definitely the technical side).  Although I'm pretty savvy with a computer, I've tried to work programs like Photoshop but the host of features is just overwhelming.  I met up with some of the CSOG guys at Harperrigg a few months ago and one of the guys (Ian or Wullie) had his full AP rig set up from the back of his van, laptop and all.  Just watching him operate everything had me in a spin, and that's before he even started processing, etc.  I think that experience confirmed for me that AP will never be my thing :-)

Keep em coming folks!

[iPeace]

I can see the appeal of playing with equipment which is digital, motorized, computerised, and further endowed with awesome coolness and which delivers results that are easily shared with anyone else on the planet. All good. And very valid and valuable astronomy. Most worthwhile.

And it's just not for me. This is my simple, quiet pastime. Nothing can break, stop working, lose alignment or require software updates. No viewscreen or keyboard. Just me, scope and sky. Up and down, left and right. Here and now. Touching the photons. Not watching telly. Not asking a computer to show me something. I do plenty of that already.

There may have been a time, long ago, when I would have taken up AP, but I have changed in the interim. I may do so again.

[Alien 13]

If I could have a scope with a 3" lens and x 4 magnification I would go visual every time, unfortunately exit pupil size gets in the way although I have used instruments in the past with EP of 16 mm or more and they where great. AP is the only real way to get over this problem so I took it up straight away after getting my first scope.

Alan 

[Starpaw]

I'm probably going to be shot down for this, but I feel visual astronomy is the purest, more utilitarian and realest branch of the hobby.  There is no post processing involved, no variables introduced by what chip your camera sports, no technicalities overshadowing what you are doing, no necessity for a £1k outlay.  It's just you, your scope, your Mk. 1 eyeball, your eyepiece and the heavens.  I am going to be a be a bit hypocritical here:  I can see the attraction of EAA, which to me seems more like an enhancement of visual astronomy rather than the pursuit of producing textbook looking images.  I must confess I have not tried AP, so feel free to give me a hard time!

[tomato]

Like most people I started out with visual (age 14) with a Prinz 2.5" refractor, then left the hobby for a long time. 15 Years later when I got back into it a colleague at work gave me a copy of "The Cambridge Atlas of DSOs" by Jack Newton, all the photos were taken by Jack using his 15" (I think) Newtonian and a modified cold camera SLR. I was amazed and totally hooked on trying to emulate his photos. Two years on and after suffering masses of frustration I gave up again just as the digital revolution was taking off. 

25 years later at the Third time of asking and with some cash to throw at it, I have once again set out to try and emulate the images being produced with the current technology, and I've learnt enough over the last 2 years to know I will never achieve an image that I'm totally satisfied with so there is the hook.

But I will always do visual if only currently with binoculars or the naked eye. My recent look through a big Dob at a dark site did seriously impress me however, and I can totally understand how this experience can be more than enough to keep the visual only astronomers from moving into imaging.

[Floater]

There's an inevitable cross-over of threads going on here. 

Beer and tomato?! Strange brew ... but two cracking threads. ??

[Natty Bumpo]

I am a visual observer, but I am also an artist. I do not do AP, but I love seeing the work that others do when they capture that moment in their AP images.

It brings the universe to life for those who have never looked through a telescope, and it informs more fully what I see through the telescope alone.

I agree with the statement that it is not one or the other. Our technology has given us both avenues to pursue.

[estwing]

2 hours ago, Starpaw said:

no necessity for a £1k outlay.

that's why I do visual, its so cheap....

[RichLD]

2 hours ago, Starpaw said:

no necessity for a £1k outlay

Correct. Multiply this figure by around 3 

[estwing]

and that's the ep case sorted...now for the scope!