Should Night Vision Have its own Section?

[Littleguy80]

17 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

I do to and yet when certain reported claims cannot be checked or verified by others it can create detachment and potential questions that are difficult to verify. This is why in the recent NV focused reflection nebulae thread, a claim for an observation of the Witch Head nebula by a member was challenged and potentially discredited - is valid and important. Traditional observers can share and often verify with conviction reports and yes the majority of posts on SGL are completely credible in their full context / entirety and which also includes NV reporting, particularly when shared among the minority users. 

 

Validity of claimed observations in reports is another tricky subject. I’ve faced questions on observations in my reports before and it feels horrible. On the flipside, if people were allowed to post false claims without being challenged then it all becomes meaningless. Tough line to walk but I think the mods do a good job with this.  

I generally include my failures as well as my successes in my reports. I always hope that in some future report, I can eventually report a success. Readers of my reports will then know that it’s something that I’ve worked up to as opposed to hitting the jackpot first time, every time. I lost count of the numbers times I reported trying and failing to see the F star in the trapezium before finally being able to report a success. Neptune’s moon Triton still evades me but hopefully one day I’ll get it and you can count on an observing report for that!

[scarp15]

12 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

 

I generally include my failures as well as my successes in my reports. I always hope that in some future report, I can eventually report a success. Readers of my reports will then know that it’s something that I’ve worked up to as opposed to hitting the jackpot first time, every time. 

Failures success's and uncertainties Neil, absolutely can and as you do in your inspiring reports, apply to any observing session and subsequent report. Feedback from a mixture of members then can develop the integrity of the session. Sometimes certain aspects might astonish a little but that's fine to. A few years ago, conversing with Gerry and accounting for Mel Bartel's observations, there was a quest to try and detect IFN, Integrated Flux Nebulae (check his drawings). Without going into too much detail; faint waves of galactic clouds, light reflected off dust, I had implied that I might have detected some aspects of this, cannot at the top of my head recall could have been near to M81, M82, which surprised some imagers as this is very difficult to image. My assumption had been vague but pushing the boundaries sometimes is OK.

[John]

I'm in no position to check or verify the reports made by members observing using very large aperture scopes under dark skies let alone those who have the benefit of NV to go deeper still. But I not really wish to do so even if I could. I read their reports with some enjoyment and a little envy at times but thats (hopefully) an emotion that I can channel towards motivating and enthusing myself to get out and observe even if my personal aperture / sky quality / skill constraints are greater.

When I post an observing report on here it's because I'm overflowing with enthusiasm for something that I have observed and I'd like to share it with you lot. My wife is so grateful for the SGL members absorbing this enthusiasm, she would like to thank each and everyone of you

I take all the observing reports posted on here as a genuine account of what the observer experienced. Sometimes it's possible to think you are seeing something only to later realise that you were mistaken and sometimes its possible to be seeing something and not realise it and I guess that applies to NV as well. Thats one of the values in reading other peoples accounts - it helps to better understand what you are seeing, or not seeing, yourself.

I struggled for about 5 years to catch a faint glimpse of the Horsehead Nebula from my back yard. I was chuffed to bits when I managed it eventually. It's a relatively easy target to image I understand and would have been a straightforward spot with a small scope equipped with NV I expect but that does not detract from how I feel about my observations of it. When I posted my report here the reaction was really encouraging and very generous even from those who use NV and others who observe under dark skies with very large apertures. If me posting my modest achievement has helped someone else to see the darn thing then whoopee !!! - thats a bonus

 

 

 

 

[iPeace]

My own wish is: whatever you think you caught a glimpse of, and whatever gear you were using, and in whatever conditions, please do share. Up to, and including, Voyager 1 through a snowstorm. Whether I find myself believing it or not, I'll always want to. I can use all the inspiration I can get, waiting all this time for the rain to stop and the clouds to clear so I can finally get out and savour the local LP.

[Geoff Barnes]

I think it is a shame that this thread has got a bit derailed into a bit of a "haves and have nots" as far as NV goes.

The OP simply queried whether NV should have its own separate thread.

The way I look at it is that NV simply allows the observer to see things that would otherwise be invisible. Well so do filters such as HB and O111, which many (if not most) of us use to see those invisible treasures out there.

I've never heard anyone calling for a separate thread for filter users, and yet the principle is exactly the same, using a device to see things that would otherwise be invisible to the naked eye.

For this reason I'm quite happy to see NV included in the current section, though if the mods decide to create its own section you won't hear me complain at all. ☺