M97 & M108

[mikeDnight]

Anothe starry night but transparency wasnt good.  (I used a UHC filter for both observations).  

 

[melsmore]

Excellent sketching! I like M97. Which UHC filter did you use?

[Ruud]

That's wonderful, Mike.

I mostly approve of the one on top! ?

[mikeDnight]

 

1 hour ago, melsmore said:

Excellent sketching! I like M97. Which UHC filter did you use?

Thanks for that! 

I used a 1.25" Baader UHC-S nebula filter (#2458275). 

The transparency was pretty poor and it took me ages to determine the orientation of the eyes even using the filter. I probably spent around 20 to 30 minutes using different eyepieces in an attempt to get the best view. I've observed M97 many times in the past without any kind of filter, even in a 60mm, but it seems my skies are becoming whitewashed with a permanent haze these days. I'm blaming a massive increase in aircraft vapour trails and not my ageing eyesight, which still seems to be pretty sharp on most things. ?

 

[mark81]

Mike,

Two more great images! Who needs cameras and tracking mounts!

Mark

[Paul73]

1 hour ago, mark81 said:

Mike,

Two more great images! Who needs cameras and tracking mounts!

Mark

Eeeerrrm. That will be me. Completely hopeless with a pencil and paper. I tried to sketch a wide double last month ☹️????.

Massive admiration for those who can and do.

Paul

[mariosi]

Very nice sketches Mike!  

[Lurcher]

They're brilliant. Very inspiring. I've chickened out of trying to draw the faint deep sky objects of late. You've encouraged me to have another go one night if I can see these objects well some time!

Thanks for posting.

[Mr niall]

That's amazing - I've never seen the owl eyes in M97, that's amazing, I've only eve had "suspected"! Definitely going to throw the 100p at it again now!

[des anderson]

Always great sketches, a real pleasure to see. Des

[Piero]

Great sketches as usual, Mike!

[mikeDnight]

Thankyou all for your kind comments. They were not easy targets and needed some careful study. I remember a time when all the Messier objects were easy targets in a pair of 60mm binoculars from my location.  Unfortunately its not like that now, and even though stellar magnitudes are easily attainable, the fuzzies are becoming more difficult even in my large 100mm scope. ☺

[John]

Just caught up with this report Mike - superb work - I've needed a dark sky an O-III filter and my 12 inch dob to get comparable views of the Owl. Filter needs to come out to see M108 at all. You really know how to push your 3.9 inches of Tak to get the most from it !

 

[mikeDnight]

9 hours ago, John said:

Just caught up with this report Mike - superb work - I've needed a dark sky an O-III filter and my 12 inch dob to get comparable views of the Owl. Filter needs to come out to see M108 at all. You really know how to push your 3.9 inches of Tak to get the most from it !

 

It plagues me that its not actually a full 4" aperture John. I should ask my wife to wash it then it might turn into an 8". She works wonders on my woolly pulleys! 

On the night I made the observations the sky was washed out with haze, all except what appeared to be a hole directly overhead. It took me ages to even detect M97 and just a few degrees nearer the horizon M51 was all but impossible to find, which shows how poor the transparency was. With the UHC and averted vision, the eyes only became noticeable fleetingly. I could see the eyes were hinted at but getting what i felt was their true orientation took some effort, and is only a guesstimate at best. If I looked directly at the Owl it almost disappeared. 

M108, had I not been familiar with its position relative to the Owl would have been a lost cause, barely perceptible with the UHC and not visible at all without it. It really was at the limit of visibility on the night in question. Looking at the sketches with averted vision probably gives a truer impression of the eyepiece view through the 4" - Sorry, the 3.9" ! 

[Mr niall]

1 hour ago, mikeDnight said:

It plagues me that its not actually a full 4" aperture John. I should ask my wife to wash it then it might turn into an 8". She works wonders on my woolly pulleys! 

On the night I made the observations the sky was washed out with haze, all except what appeared to be a hole directly overhead. It took me ages to even detect M97 and just a few degrees nearer the horizon M51 was all but impossible to find, which shows how poor the transparency was. With the UHC and averted vision, the eyes only became noticeable fleetingly. I could see the eyes were hinted at but getting what i felt was their true orientation took some effort, and is only a guesstimate at best. If I looked directly at the Owl it almost disappeared. 

M108, had I not been familiar with its position relative to the Owl would have been a lost cause, barely perceptible with the UHC and not visible at all without it. It really was at the limit of visibility on the night in question. Looking at the sketches with averted vision probably gives a truer impression of the eyepiece view through the 4" - Sorry, the 3.9" ! 

Do you think a UHC is a good investment then? Sounds like a bit a game changer in your situation.

[jock1958]

Lovely sketches Mike and thanks for the inspiration. The Owl was very high in the sky tonight however I managed to catch a glimpse of it through my 24 mm panoptic and O-III filter - sadly no detail.

[mikeDnight]

13 hours ago, Mr niall said:

Do you think a UHC is a good investment then? Sounds like a bit a game changer in your situation.

Yes! The UHC is a good filter to use in a small scope, as stars are still visible. O2 filters are great but they blot out all but the brightest stars in a small aperture scope.