Naming images

[fwm891]

Some really superb images being posted on this forum in all sections.

There a quite a few I would like to emulate and see what sort of result I can get with my kit and available time. However, some of the images are posted without any form of identification or they've been given a common, non catalogue ID making it impossible to find - especially for newer imagers. 

I hope I label mine whether they are a more common target or not - would be great if everyone added a simple catalogue reference like an: NGC####, IC##, Sh2-###, M### … That would make it easy to locate on a planetarium or star map.

Thanks

Francis

[Adreneline]

40 minutes ago, fwm891 said:

making it impossible to find

I agree entirely. There are indeed some excellent and inspiring images presented on this forum from which we should all be able to learn.

I don't wish to divert this thread but it would also be nice to have an insight into what equipment was used (not always in the signature) and where the image was taken from (some don't even indicate the country where they or their imaging gear are located). Some contributors to this forum just seem to feel their name or pseudonym is sufficient for us all to know what they've got and where they are.

[tooth_dr]

And I tend to browse a lot on the phone and I can’t see signatures so equipment isn’t always obvious. 

[Rodd]

I agree....but I have not come across this issue to often.  Maybe it was because I already knew the targets designation and did not notice.  I think the target designation, optics, and camera should be the minimum information included.  From that you can judge your equipment's ability to frame and resolve.  exposure times are helpful too--but I find I pretty much stick with the same general exposure times regardless of what others use.  the sky plays such a big role in this. 

Rodd

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

You can put any astro image in astrometry.net and its plate-solving software will tell you where in the sky the scope was pointing.

[ollypenrice]

Fair point from Francis. However, I always find the common name in Google will spit out the catalogue number in a trice and also its RA and Dec co-ordinates which I sometimes need for my handset-based mounts.

Olly

[Stub Mandrel]

I find common names much easier to remember and a lot more robust to mistakes. Very easy to mistype catalogue numbers and as Olly says, Google finds anything quickly (notably foreign language versions of Wikipedia have far better information on more obscure targets than the English language one).

I generally put basic equipment/exposure information in posts, always happy to share more detail if asked.

@michael.h.f.wilkinson is right about astrometry.net the fastest way is to right click the image, 'copy image location' and put that into the site.

Signatures can give away information to the wrong sort of person...

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I find common names much easier to remember and a lot more robust to mistakes. Very easy to mistype catalogue numbers and as Olly says, Google finds anything quickly (notably foreign language versions of Wikipedia have far better information on more obscure targets than the English language one).

I generally put basic equipment/exposure information in posts, always happy to share more detail if asked.

@michael.h.f.wilkinson is right about astrometry.net the fastest way is to right click the image, 'copy image location' and put that into the site.

Signatures can give away information to the wrong sort of person...

The problem with that is most targets don’t have names-especially the globular, PNs, dark nebulae, etc. I find ic, sh2, NGC or B numbers the most useful. But if the target has a well known name, that’s fine too

Rodd

[Stub Mandrel]

9 hours ago, Rodd said:

The problem with that is most targets don’t have names-especially the globular, PNs, dark nebulae, etc. I find ic, sh2, NGC or B numbers the most useful. But if the target has a well known name, that’s fine too

Rodd

True, but it makes me more tolerant of relatively new names.

On the other hand many objects have several names and they can be ambiguous and confusing.

A beginner might want to photograph the Eagle Nebula, but if the photo is titled M16 and they look it up in on the Messier list it's an open cluster...

I generally rely on a combination of google and Stellarium both of which cope with synonyms quite well.

[fwm891]

OK point in question:

I spent some time yesterday evening setting up a few target sequences in SG Pro, one being the 'Butterfly nebula' so I go into CdC to find it's co-ordinates and there are 3 butterfly nebs listed (I wanted the one in Cygnus) had the image been notated with IC 1318 it would have been much easier - but then I wouldn't have fond the other two...

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, fwm891 said:

OK point in question:

I spent some time yesterday evening setting up a few target sequences in SG Pro, one being the 'Butterfly nebula' so I go into CdC to find it's co-ordinates and there are 3 butterfly nebs listed (I wanted the one in Cygnus) had the image been notated with IC 1318 it would have been much easier - but then I wouldn't have fond the other two...

I guess the best policy is to treat target names like your children.....”trust but verify!”

Rodd

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, fwm891 said:

OK point in question:

I spent some time yesterday evening setting up a few target sequences in SG Pro, one being the 'Butterfly nebula' so I go into CdC to find it's co-ordinates and there are 3 butterfly nebs listed (I wanted the one in Cygnus) had the image been notated with IC 1318 it would have been much easier - but then I wouldn't have fond the other two...

As a botanist I can say with some confidence that having common AND scientific/systematic names is a GOOD THING even if they cause some ambiguities.

At the absolute minimum it means you have two stabs at remembering a name, but they also help with associating the name with the object. IC1318 tells you absolutely nothing beyond the object is probably fainter/smaller than objects in the NGC... Butterfly Nebula tells you (a) it's a nebula and (b) it probably has a fairly well defined symmetrical shape and is likely to be an interesting target. Technical names are also a barrier to the less experienced.

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

As a botanist I can say with some confidence that having common AND scientific/systematic names is a GOOD THING even if they cause some ambiguities.

At the absolute minimum it means you have two stabs at remembering a name, but they also help with associating the name with the object. IC1318 tells you absolutely nothing beyond the object is probably fainter/smaller than objects in the NGC... Butterfly Nebula tells you (a) it's a nebula and (b) it probably has a fairly well defined symmetrical shape and is likely to be an interesting target. Technical names are also a barrier to the less experienced.

I definitely like having both.  there is one nebula that I always forget it designation--and it does not have a common name.  I call t the fly fishing nebula--its in Monoceros and it looks like a fly one fishes with.  I always call it NGC 2074 and that is always not it!  So common names definitely are useful!

Rodd