Seeing vs Observing

[Littleguy80]

I've become aware recently that I spend a lot more time looking for objects than observing them. On finding an object, I normally  experiment with magnifications and possibly filters, depending on the object type. I'll spend around 10 minutes looking and trying averted vision and then move on. Last night, I made a point of only targeting objects I'd seen before. I then made notes of what I saw with little diagrams. I wouldn't go so far as to call them sketches, my kids draw better pictures than me! Making notes definitely encouraged close inspection when trying to record exactly what I was seeing. I'm considering getting a log book to make a habit of recording my observations.

I really want to make the most of objects when I do find them. I've had several occasions, mostly with Nebula, where I really struggle to see the detail. I'm sure conditions are a factor but equally I'm sure I could see more with better technique. 

Do any of you have routines or techniques you use to help you move past simply seeing an object to observing it with all the available detail?

 

 

[Moonshane]

I sketch things as you have started to do. I really enjoy it.

[John]

It took me quite a while to work out that the longer I studied an object (deep sky or planetary) the more detail I managed to see.

I think initially in the hobby it's quite usual to go through a lot of targets reasonably quickly, ticking them off, so to speak.

It was when I started reading posts on this forum that I realised that I was not really getting the full potential of what I was looking at. Spending more time observing an object, and then re-visiting the target often and developing a familliarity with it, has delivered much more satisfaction for me.

I don't sketch often but I can see how it helps develop observing technique and critical viewing (for the want of a better term !). Even though I rarely produce sketches I do often go through the thought processes as if I was going to put pencil to paper, and it does help to tease out and interpret what is on view.

The saying "the more you look, the more you see" does really resonate with me

 

 

[cloudsweeper]

I just keep looking and experimenting, and try to get the best out of a target.

But DO keep a log.  I have a list of objects to view (by constellation), and a log to record each session.  And then I keep a list of what I've seen, arranged by category - M, C, NGC, IC, planetary, lunar, stars, etc..  Well worth doing - you can easily forget, with all treasures there are up there!

Doug.

[jetstream]

33 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

 I've had several occasions, mostly with Nebula, where I really struggle to see the detail.

Hi Neil, which nebula are we talking about? I'm curious.

[mikeDnight]

Hi Neil,

It's good you're thinking of recording your observations as making notes or simple sketches helps you to pay more than the usual attention to the object you're studying. Even basic sketches can be very valueable. For example, the next time you look at the ring nebula or the dumbbell nebula, study them for at least ten mins before you begin recording your observation. If you have a blackout blanket to prevent stray light, even in a dark site, then it will enhance you're dark adaption. Using averted vision, allowing your eye to naturally scan the image, look for differences in surface brightness. Both the ring and the dumbbell show interesting though subtle features once you look at them this way. Look for faint stars surrounding the objects and may be annotate your sketch with numbers representing brightness differences.

With something like the Orion nebula you'll soon begin to notice the mass of black nebulosity which occurs in tiers one behind another, and that has shafts of bright nebulosity bursting out from behind the dark, giving a strong 3D impression. The nebula is also far more extensive than it first appears. Exercising your observing skills by really studying your subject carefully rather than just looking as many do, will greatly enhance your observing skill. Studying one or two objects thoroughly in one night is far better than rushing through the Messier catalogue just to complete it and observing nothing in the process.

[Moonshane]

one thing that allowed me to relax more is the dawning of appreciation that you'll never see all known objects so just enjoy the ones you do see for more time! even if you did see all the known objects, in the time taken, a load more would have been discovered anyhow!

 

[Mr niall]

That's really interesting I've been musing the exact same thing over the last few days, been thinking of getting a notebook myself would be really interested to hear people's thoughts.

[Piero]

Yes, a log can really help. One can understand sky conditions, target details, equipment, etc while recording each session.

I used to write down my sessions and I believe I learnt a lot from them. The only reason why I stopped is that the reports were getting repetitive. Basically I finished off the list of targets I can see with my 60mm under my local skies. 

Here are examples: https://bitbucket.org/pdp10/aj/wiki/Home

[Paz]

Looking at fewer targets and spending more time on each one helps.

I would also say that from what I read on sgl, observers who do sketching tend to pull out a lot of detail and more than I tend to pick up on myself.

[ollypenrice]

Most artists would say that you don't really look at something until you try to draw it.*

'He falls to such persusal of my face

As he would draw it.'

Shakespeare, 1608. I really don't think mobile phones have changed any of that!!! To look, to see, is an active office. Observing is strenuous.

Olly

*John's point noted with respect. You can observe as if  you were going to draw.

 

[Littleguy80]

45 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Hi Neil, which nebula are we talking about? I'm curious.

Hi Gerry, most recently was the crescent nebula. I could see the star formation but no nebulosity (I think that's the correct term). I've had similar experiences with the North American nebula and the Elephant Trunk nebula. I did see the Veil on the second attempt with an OIII. I think, because I'm inexperienced, with a challenging target ,it's easy to talk myself out of seeing it. I start to doubt if it's something that's achievable given my scope, the conditions or the level of light pollution. Once that doubt is there then the chances of a successful observation go down

[Littleguy80]

Lots of great responses. Thank you all so much. I think I definitely need to work on keeping the number of targets low and only one or two new ones per session. Will be getting a log book too. I'll see how the sketching progresses, even if I just go through the mental process of doing it

[jetstream]

29 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

Hi Gerry, most recently was the crescent nebula. I could see the star formation but no nebulosity (I think that's the correct term). I've had similar experiences with the North American nebula and the Elephant Trunk nebula. I did see the Veil on the second attempt with an OIII. I think, because I'm inexperienced, with a challenging target ,it's easy to talk myself out of seeing it. I start to doubt if it's something that's achievable given my scope, the conditions or the level of light pollution. Once that doubt is there then the chances of a successful observation go down

These a very tough objects Neil, what kind of sky darkness do you have? The North American nebula is so big that it is very easy to look through it and finding a grey shade edge is a good thing to try first. I use the Crescent as a test of sky conditions here and it really needs 21 mag+ skies IMHO. Your 24mm is a bit on the low side exit pupil wise for your filters ie I use a 30mm and 42mm @ f7, but then the image is so small dark skies are espc needed, in my scopes.

Have you tried the Pacman in Cass? Easy to find and easier to see than the other nebs mentioned and your 24mm/OIII will work to see it. Keep trying, you will begin to see these objects if your sky allows.

 

[Littleguy80]

I'm not sure what mag my skies are but I know from the light pollution maps that they're not good! I do have agreement to do some observing under much darker skies. Not an official dark site but a lot better than my garden. Just waiting for a suitable night to head over and try it out.

Really interesting point on exit pupil of my 24mm and the filters. Not something I'd ever considered. What would you consider the minimum exit pupil for the filters I have? 

I have the Pacman down on my list of things to see. I'll have a go at that next time out  

[Piero]

13 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

Really interesting point on exit pupil of my 24mm and the filters. Not something I'd ever considered. What would you consider the minimum exit pupil for the filters I have? 

 Com'on Gerry ( @jetstream )! we are curious!  

 

(My choices: for extended nebulae the minimum I use is 2mm. For planetary nebulae I successfully went down to 0.8mm.)

 

Edit: 

Oops.. I read the question wrongly.. I thought Neil asked what Gerry advises as minimum exit pupil when nebula filters are used. Apologise! 

[jetstream]

5 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

I'm not sure what mag my skies are but I know from the light pollution maps that they're not good! I do have agreement to do some observing under much darker skies. Not an official dark site but a lot better than my garden. Just waiting for a suitable night to head over and try it out.

Really interesting point on exit pupil of my 24mm and the filters. Not something I'd ever considered. What would you consider the minimum exit pupil for the filters I have? 

I have the Pacman down on my list of things to see. I'll have a go at that next time out  

Ok Piero, lets give him a chance!

We'll assume a 130mm f7 scope from moderately dark skies... and not planetary nebs...

Many people seem to like about 5mm as an all round exit pupil I think but I must say that FOV is important too. The NAN is so big that most scopes won't see it all so your looking for an edge. The larger 2" eyepieces seem to work better to my eyes on nebula- as Piero says the extra FOV might engage more receptors.

Its hard to go wrong with a 5mm exit pupil with an OIII and let the mag fall where it goes.

[scarp15]

Seeing more in what you observe is primarily about composure. At the start of a session my mind is usually still distracted. Only when gradually becoming more relaxed and fully engaged, will I kind of transcend into a heightened state of alertness and my attention is entirely focused, fatigue or any other distraction is gone. I most experience this when fully dark adapted usually solo and at a dark sky location.  Becoming educated, undertaking research learning from others encounters such as on the forum is crucial for grasping and deciphering particular features, details and characteristics on any particular object. Besides presence of mind, as said, patience, spending time to digest and going back to an object particularly as transparency, ascendance alters. I spend most of my time observing looking up and plotting or making a mental note as to where things are in the constellations than I actually take intimately observing an object through the eyepiece. 

[John]

Just now, scarp15 said:

Seeing more in what you observe is primarily about composure. At the start of a session my mind is usually still distracted. Only when gradually becoming more relaxed and fully engaged, will I kind of transcend into a heightened state of alertness and my attention is entirely focused, fatigue or any other distraction is gone. I most experience this when fully dark adapted usually solo and at a dark sky location. ... 

There is a lot to this point I feel.

When the skies are dark and I get the 12" dob up and running with the 21mm Ethos in the focuser, after a couple of hours of galaxy hunting I've got myself really "in the grove" and very focussed in the mental way. My eyes are as dark adapted as they will get and I find that the faint fuzzies pop into view more easily than at any other time.

I don't have such sessions very often but when they happen they are very fulfilling and give a feeling of "oneness" with the Universe that sounds rather corny but it's the only way I can describe it.

It's not really a technique other than allowing what you are doing and that patch of space in your eyepiece to totally occupy your mind for a few hours.

 

[Piero]

All these filters work better under dark skies. Under moderately light polluted skies, an OIII filter is still helpful, but the view under dark skies is just much better. Some features will be visible with direct vision, others with averted vision.

Patience at the eyepiece and dark adaptation are needed, and they will pay you back nicely.   

 

p.s.

observing under a decent dark sky surrounded by nature is one of the best experiences I have ever had. Just natural noises around and a crazy amount of stars above. Wonderful!

[celestron8g8]

I think it's really awesome of any that take notes and sketch . That is something I really wish I had done over the years . I did alot of observing until I tried imaging and some I enjoyed but to sit at an EP  and study an object for a spell was so intriging . I would always think how far away it was and how big it was but the beauty of it was awesome . I always encourage people to observe more and image less . Some newbies buy setups just to image and never take time to actually look at what they are imaging . I'm retiring soon from all this because of health reasons and age but it will always be in my mind and heart !! Record all you can , later in life it will mean so much to you and curious friends and family of your work ! 

[jetstream]

5 minutes ago, Piero said:

dark adaptation are needed,

Yes, great that you mention this Piero -its hugely important for being able to bond with the DSO world.

Vogel's work is very good Neil

http://www.reinervogel.net/index_e.html

[Littleguy80]

8 minutes ago, John said:

very focussed in the mental way

I think this is often referred to as being "in flow". It's something I experience a lot in my work when I'm totally engaged in a task. I'm getting that from Astronomy too but much more from the finding aspect of the hobby. I guess that's pretty normal for a beginner, learning to find objects is the first big challenge. Time under the stars passes incredibly quickly for me. Observing is the next big challenge where I need to find that same mental state 

[Littleguy80]

7 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Vogel's work is very good Neil

http://www.reinervogel.net/index_e.html

Looks a fascinating site, Gerry. Super interesting to understand how our eyes work with respect to dark adaption. Understanding our equipment goes beyond just telescopes and eyepieces it seems

[jetstream]

Oh yes, the eye/brain deal is a ball of wax in itself. Lots of great tips given in this thread and I believe early success is important and getting things in the ballpark will lead to that.

Vogels SH2 catalog is excellent and I myself stare for many hours into seemingly endless space looking for many of them, some found most not. I always end the night on a sky cruise viewing my favorite objects to end the evening, with a telescope or not.