How should m13 look?

[DAVE AMENDALL]

Thanks Niall. The visual view for me always seems to be a lot better than the photo image on all DSOs. Should have mentioned it was taken with an umodded DSLR ..................Dave

[Stu]

3 hours ago, DAVE AMENDALL said:

Here's my humble effort Nial. 6" Bresser Messier Frac Lumicon deep sky filter, Gimp processed Fairly dark sky within dark dome.Not good but that's what it looks like....Dave

Nice shot Dave, shows the propeller really clearly.

[Dave In Vermont]

Dave's image, taken through a 6" telescope, does a great job of showing the 6-inch rule-of-thumb for resolving M13. And the 'star flying out' terminology. Very well done, Dave - thank you!

Amazing thing, that lovely globular!

Enjoy -

Dave

[Mr niall]

Update: Had another go last night, spent at least 25 mins at the eyepiece and got exactly the same experience; like others suggested though spent a good 20 mins viewing and details did seem to gradually reveal themselves with a mixture of direct and averted viewing. Best views were at 20mm; was very pleased by the time I moved on. Stars at the edges were beginning to appear and with averted vision could see the core occasionally swimming into focus; there were fleeting moments where I could see it looking just like the images (but that may have been psychological!).

Also managed to bag M81 and M82 which was a surprise (and in less than 10 mins of searching which was an even bigger surprise!), just the faintest grey wisps really but M81 was definitely brighter. By comparing all three (M13,M81 & M82) with what Turn left at Orion describes I can see that it is a pretty consistent experience across all three. I was amazed at the difference in improvement if you give an object 15-20 mins which I haven't really done before. Spent another 15 mins on M51. Again. Still cant find it. Now convinced it doesnt exist....

Thanks again everyone, will get a LP filter next, and then immediately afterwards a 12" dob and a house in New Mexico....

Niall

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, Mr niall said:

Spent another 15 mins on M51. Again. Still cant find it. Now convinced it doesnt exist....

 

Dark skies are the easy answer to this one. It has quite low surface brightness and is easily washed out by LP making it hard or impossible to find. It is quite easy in binoculars under a good sky.

This is the star hop I use to get to M81/82, it's easy to find them in a few seconds using this method. The red arrow route is more reliable than the blue one, I find anyway.

[Mark at Beaufort]

As promised I viewed M13 with the Heritage 130P and my ES82 6.7mm EP giving me a mag of 97X. The end of my garden is quite dark especially when I have the backout curtains in place. Last night I also used my new observing hood.

The view that I had was similar to the photo produced by Dave. I could easily see the stars at the edge but not to the core. TBH I was quite pleased with the view from this 5" Newt especially as it is my travel scope and quick grab and go.

I did view M13 with my 12" Dob using my 13mm Ethos, 9mm Myraid and the 6.7mm ES82. The view was incredible with stars to the core and I could easily see the propeller.

[Mark at Beaufort]

34 minutes ago, Stu said:

 

Dark skies are the easy answer to this one. It has quite low surface brightness and is easily washed out by LP making it hard or impossible to find. It is quite easy in binoculars under a good sky.

This is the star hop I use to get to M81/82, it's easy to find them in a few seconds using this method. The red arrow route is more reliable than the blue one, I find anyway.

Stu I use the same hopping arrangement. I also agree that M51 can be seen with binoculars and M101. To find M101 I start at Mizar then count the 4 stars 81, 83, 84 and 86 and then move at a right angle to find M101.

[John]

I missed out on M13 last night because it was behind our house and I could not be bothered to haul the 12" dob around to the front

Got some excellent views of the Veil, the Crescent, the Ring and Dumbbell nebs though, in compensation. Also did some tight double stars with the 12" dob, which I don't normally do. managed to crack Lambda Cygni at 265x which I was quite impressed with.

I've taken a liking to the fainter globular M71 in Sagitta for some reason. It's a delicate object but in a rather rich and lovely field and it's a youthful glob at "just" 9-10 billion years old

 

[Mr niall]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

 

Dark skies are the easy answer to this one. It has quite low surface brightness and is easily washed out by LP making it hard or impossible to find. It is quite easy in binoculars under a good sky.

This is the star hop I use to get to M81/82, it's easy to find them in a few seconds using this method. The red arrow route is more reliable than the blue one, I find anyway.

Thats interesting - I used blue arrow last night, I'll try the red next time thanks.

[Dave In Vermont]

Using a photo - 'image' these days - can be a problem if one is not familiar with the true difference between our eyes vs. CCD/film. After about 20 minutes, our eyes will give us as much dark-adaptation as we can expect. Not so with CCD's and other imaging methods. By this I mean that the longer the camera 'looks' at a given dim object (to us), the more details that will become distinct and of greater contrast. Add to this some filter-technology - we wind-up with an image that people are familiar with from main-stream news stories. And not understanding this results in people buying a telescope and expecting to see things like the Hubble Space Telescope shows everyone.

After that 15 to 20-ish minutes of dark-adaptation, that's about it. So doing any & all we can not to wreck that dark-adaptation is to be encouraged: Red-flashlights (torches), red-screen software for the computer that we sometimes set-up at our viewing locations, and putting up barriers to shield us from outside lights, and other forms of passive technology - all will help us to act as the best 'camera' we can be. And maintain such.

Regarding using red-screen software to keep our adaptation, there are several to choose from (FREE, of course). Google - or your favorite search-engine - will get you these. My favorite one is Dom's AstroRed. I'm leaving a .zip file below should you wish to install same. Do read the instructions. I didn't my first time - and couldn't figure out how to turn it off!

That's my 2¢,

Dave

 

Dom's AstroRed Theme.zip

Oh, here's an example I ran into:

 

 

[Red Dwarfer]

5 hours ago, Mr niall said:

Star hop I use to get to M81/82

I used that blue line method in the second image last night too ... as it`s roughly the same distance as the first two stars , roughly a straight line too , then up a bit ...

[Red Dwarfer]

8 hours ago, Mr niall said:

15 mins on M51. Again. Still cant find it. Now convinced it doesnt exist...

I tried M51 in 10x50 binoculars last night and found it in seconds - then tried with a 90mm refractor for about 10 minutes and could not find anything ! 

Bode`s Galaxy was clear enough in the 90mm , but the Cigar Galaxy nearby was only very , very faintly visible in the 40mm eyepiece . 

[Stu]

31 minutes ago, Red Dwarfer said:

I used that blue line method in the second image last night too ... as it`s roughly the same distance as the first two stars , roughly a straight line too , then up a bit ...

The blue line definitely works but I think it leaves you with having to estimate the distance and is prone to error. I think star hops work best when you can hop within the field of view of either the scope or Finder so you are led right to the target, always keeping the starting star in view before seeing the next 'hop'

With a 9x50 Finder, the red path allows this, the blue does not. Neither is right or wrong, one is just less prone to failure.

[Red Dwarfer]

19 hours ago, Stu said:

The blue line definitely works but I think it leaves you with having to estimate the distance and is prone to error. I think star hops work best when you can hop within the field of view of either the scope or Finder so you are led right to the target, always keeping the starting star in view before seeing the next 'hop'

With a 9x50 Finder, the red path allows this, the blue does not. Neither is right or wrong, one is just less prone to failure.

Very good advice , Stu - I found M81 initially with a third pyramid idea , but it was hit and miss , so I sat back to try and find an easier and more reliable route ...

Had the 130p out last night , so was able to see both M81 and M82 ?

[JOC]

I nearly gave up on getting a decent view of M13 with my 8" F6 Dob.  All I was getting was an undistinguished grey splodge.  Then I thought, eell ut won't be much worse and stuffed my 15mm Meade 4000 into the 2X Barlow.  Then I just sat and looked at the larger undlstinguished grey mass. As I looked I could see stars gradually appearing like an old B&W photo in a developing tank.  Looking for a long time and upping the magnification certainly worked for me.

[Mr niall]

13 hours ago, JOC said:

I nearly gave up on getting a decent view of M13 with my 8" F6 Dob.  All I was getting was an undistinguished grey splodge.  Then I thought, eell ut won't be much worse and stuffed my 15mm Meade 4000 into the 2X Barlow.  Then I just sat and looked at the larger undlstinguished grey mass. As I looked I could see stars gradually appearing like an old B&W photo in a developing tank.  Looking for a long time and upping the magnification certainly worked for me.

Yes I think that developing photo analogy is pretty much bang on! Ironically had the best view of it yet last night in my 15x70 bins; rushed out during a momentary gap in the clouds on an otherwise miserable wet and windy night; stars were like pin bright on a jet black background - looks like seeing has a huge impact too!

[Polstar_UK]

Sky / atmospheric conditions can play a big part in what you see with these deep sky objects. Last week due to the warm sky, not long after sunset, village street lights, neighbours having a bbq with a massive security light on, I only saw M13 as a faint smudge with a few stars visable. A few years ago during a clear December night that  had cold still air it reminded me of the closing credits of the 80s Buck Rogers TV show with all the stars :-)