M42 and M43 plus questions from inexperienced sketcher

[AlcorAlly]

Here’s my sketch of m42 and 43 through a 3 inch refractor. It was done in the dark while looking through an eyepiece. When I compare it to diagrams and photographs of the object I see a lot of errors in proportions, sizes, brightness, and so on.

So I had a few questions for sketching enthusiasts.

What do you do in this situation? Do you correct your errors afterwards? Do you make small adjustments to the sketch to make them more accurate based on the photos and other references? Or perhaps you come back to the object on another night and fix any inaccuracies at the eyepiece? Or just leave it as it is, and do a new one next time?

Would love to hear any tips, techniques, or best practices on addressing the inaccuracies.

[DPF]

Nice sketch.

I’m also new to sketching and the one thing I have to remind myself is, “why am I doing this?” For me it’s about being outside and looking after my mental wellbeing, as well as looking at what’s above us through an eyepiece.

When I look at other peoples sketches, I am often in awe of what I see but the sketches are what they see on the night and often through more powerful equipment than I have. As they say, “art is in the eye of the beholder” and the conditions we sketch in will never be the same twice.

I sketch at the telescope and don’t make any changes when back inside, but that’s my personal choice. I do dread looking at what I’ve sketched when I go back inside, as under red light they look much better. 
 

I look to learn from each sketch and try not to get too hung up on the mistakes - it’s a learning curve.

Keep going and most of all enjoy it. 👍

[josefk]

i think that's a nice sketch @AlcorAlly TBH and i'm not sure what you mean by "inaccuracies" - its your sketch of your observation. IMHO (and speaking for myself only) if i wanted to accurately draw a star chart i'd copy one sat inside in the warm and in good lighting 😄.  A sketch at the EP (for me) is about faithfully recording my observation at that time. I copy them the next day onto clean dry card etc but i copy what i drew at the scope and use memory to make it even more like what i felt like i observed and match my experience. i.e a sketch is MY own aide memoire - No point "correcting" anything because then it wouldn't be my observation anymore...

...that said LOL 🙂 - for M42 in particular i am slightly tempted to actually copy the star field to a sketch pad from a star chart while sat in the warm at home then take that to the field to "fill in" the nebulosity so i could fully concentrate on just the nebulosity. I haven't actually followed through on that whim yet.

[ollypenrice]

I can't see any point in trying to turn a photo into a sketch, or vice-versa. I think the point is to refine your observational and sketching skills in the same way that visual observers and astrophotographers refine theirs. Drawing skills can be taught, too. Classes in drawing from a good teacher might be worthwhile.

Olly

[mikeDnight]

On 21/02/2023 at 09:59, AlcorAlly said:

Here’s my sketch of m42 and 43 through a 3 inch refractor. It was done in the dark while looking through an eyepiece. When I compare it to diagrams and photographs of the object I see a lot of errors in proportions, sizes, brightness, and so on.

So I had a few questions for sketching enthusiasts.

What do you do in this situation? Do you correct your errors afterwards? Do you make small adjustments to the sketch to make them more accurate based on the photos and other references? Or perhaps you come back to the object on another night and fix any inaccuracies at the eyepiece? Or just leave it as it is, and do a new one next time?

Would love to hear any tips, techniques, or best practices on addressing the inaccuracies.

  I love your sketch. It looks like an honest representation of what you would have seen at the eyepiece.  I wouldn't worry too much about errors, they are inevitable, after all you're drawing in the dark using averted vision to observe, while trying to maintain a good level of dark adaption; and the field is often moving.

 Personally I use a rough sketch book for drawings at the telescope. Very often I mess up when trying to place stars in their relative positions, so I cross out wrongly placed stars and add stars where they should be (all done at the eyepiece ). I've never worried about getting the Starfield so accurate that it matches a star map or image. I'm just happy if someone comparing my sketch with an image can see which star is meant to be which. Also, I have never been able to draw all the stars in the field, as the more I study the field the more stars I usually see, so I limit myself to depicting only the major field stars. Generally I'll add the nebulosity after I've placed most of the stars but the fainter ones may need placing afterwards. 

 I will usually make a cleaned up version of the sketch in a higher quality sketch book soon after the observation. The cleaned up sketch doesn't contain the errors made in the eyepiece sketch, but that's not to say that the cleaned up sketch is completely accurate either. It's just as honest as I can make it and I'm far from infallible.  I usually work with graphite pencil on white paper, then image the sketch and turn it into a negative so as to give a reasonably realistic view. It's important to note when studying any of my sketches, that they represent detail seen over time and are not meant to imply this is what someone would immediately see through the eyepiece.  Many of my brighter deep sky sketches represent detail seen over 20 to 60 minutes of careful study under a blackout blanket. 

 I think I make sketches rather than write copious notes because sketching helps me to really see and not just look, also, I'm lazy and would rather study a sketch than read a page or two of explanations. A picture speaks a thousand words!  If there are known inaccuracies, you could always add a side note. 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by mikeDnight

[Nicola Fletcher]

I also really like your sketch. It’s instantly recognisable and gives me that same wow feeling as I get when I look at M42 through a telescope.

I also like to make a rough sketch at the eyepiece and then a better one once I’m inside. I really like sketching with white pastel on black paper as I like the idea that the sketch matches the eyepiece view as much as possible. I don’t really worry too much about errors, you can always sketch the same target several times and refine your technique.

[AlcorAlly]

Thank you all for your responses! I understand that sketching is a very personal practice and people approach it in different ways. 

Some might see it as form of visual note taking, and their main goal would be to improve their knowledge of the object and to remember it better.

Other people might see it as aesthetic or artistic form of sketching, in which case their main goal would be to capture the beauty and unique personality of an object. 

There may also be a third camp who sees astronomical sketching as a form of scientific drawing, similar to a botanical illustration. I wouldn't be surprised if these sketchers would want to correct inaccuracies in their work - not necessarily to "turn a photo into a sketch, or vice-versa", but to reduce any obvious errors that maybe distracting. 

I'm sure there are also a lot of people who do it for pure pleasure of it, to enjoy the process, without a specific outcome in mind.

So I'm very interested to hear how people here think about their sketching practice and the aspects they like to focus on or trying to improve.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by AlcorAlly
typo

[AlcorAlly]

14 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Personally I use a rough sketch book for drawings at the telescope. Very often I mess up when trying to place stars in their relative positions, so I cross out wrongly placed stars and add stars where they should be (all done at the eyepiece ). I've never worried about getting the Starfield so accurate that it matches a star map or image. I'm just happy if someone comparing my sketch with an image can see which star is meant to be which. Also, I have never been able to draw all the stars in the field, as the more I study the field the more stars I usually see, so I limit myself to depicting only the major field stars. Generally I'll add the nebulosity after I've placed most of the stars but the fainter ones may need placing afterwards. 

 I will usually make a cleaned up version of the sketch in a higher quality sketch book soon after the observation. The cleaned up sketch doesn't contain the errors made in the eyepiece sketch, but that's not to say that the cleaned up sketch is completely accurate either. It's just as honest as I can make it and I'm far from infallible.  I usually work with graphite pencil on white paper, then image the sketch and turn it into a negative so as to give a reasonably realistic view. 

I really like this idea of a "draft" sketch. If at all possible, would you be able to share one of your draft sketches and a cleaned up version? Just for my reference and inspiration. Of course, no worries if you'd rather not, I understand this work can be very personal! 

Quote

It's important to note when studying any of my sketches, that they represent detail seen over time and are not meant to imply this is what someone would immediately see through the eyepiece.  Many of my brighter deep sky sketches represent detail seen over 20 to 60 minutes of careful study under a blackout blanket. 

This is a very intersting point. Does it mean that you sometimes work on the same sketch over a number of sessions? 

[AlcorAlly]

On 21/02/2023 at 12:22, josefk said:

I copy them the next day onto clean dry card etc but i copy what i drew at the scope and use memory to make it even more like what i felt like i observed and match my experience. i.e a sketch is MY own aide memoire

I like this idea, sounds similar to the technique @mikeDnight is using. I'm going to try it, thank you!

[Siegfried1969]

This is amazing. Very well done !!

I am now sketching for about a year now (mainly planets). Haven't tried the Orion nebula yet but I won't be able to match what you have created here.

But I can tell you how I usually work. To me a sketch is like a composite. I study the object for several nights with different magnifications, averted vision, indirect viewing etc. in order to observe much detail as possible. Every time when I see something new or some detail I haven't seen it before I add it to the drawing. Most details will come with averted vision and that is the hardest to render as these details are only visible a fraction of a second.

Once finished and go inside, I still make slight modifications. It's important to rely only on what you have seen. Do not look at other pictures or drawings during the process otherwise it completely misses the goal. 

For me a sketch is the answer to: "This is what I have seen that night through this particular telescope with this filter etc...". And the rendering of my observation has to be as accurate as possible. I do not care about misplaced or missing stars or details I got wrong when compare my sketch with a picture or planetarium software.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

It seems that generally astronomers seem to be self critical  and always striving to improve, whether sketching or imaging.
I am an imager and cannot sketch to save my life but love to look in this section as many of the sketches are amazing.
To me that looks a great sketch and would be more than proud of it.

As an imager I really think @ollypenrice is spot on in that treating it like an imager would treat an image  and at some stage come back to the same targets and try again and hopefully you see improvements in the later sketches just like imagers hope for improvements when they come back and image the same objects. For both better equipment and better seeing may help to improve things but also our own skils will have improved over time.

But I still say that looks a great sketch to me  🙂

Steve

Edited February 26, 2023 by teoria_del_big_bang

[Naughty Neal]

The sketchs are great, imho one interperates the views that one see's at that momemnt in time.  Inaccuracies will  come into play but that is the delight of live sketching , one doesn't have the time to get every thing spot on.

[Ratlet]

That's a fantastic sketch.

I don't usually redo sketches at the eyepiece.  For me they serve as a note on what I was observing but mostly as a tool to help really observe the object.  I seem to see more by sketching than I do without.

That being said the real reason I like sketching is because it's fun.

One reason I'm reluctant to correct mistakes is that I kind of like going back and sketching stuff and seeing if I get better, or was the seeing better.

If you haven't you should try sketching from astroimages.  That is quite fun too and I think it can help refine your technique as you can do it in the warm and with more detail than you'll see at the eyepiece.

But that is a smashing sketch.  Instantly recognizable, even though I use a newtonians and mine would be rotated 90° from yours.

[Veloman]

Excellent sketch,  I can recognize this and I've only been observing a very short while ! This inspires me to have a go myself.

Rob