Observing vs. Imaging

[nat456]

Hello! I’ve bought an 8 inch dobsonian after not being into the hobby for a couple years. The telescope I had before was a 5 inch Celestron Nexstar, and I hated it. It seems like imaging is more fun, but also costs much more and I currently have nothing that would get a start, not even a computer. So my question is does any one solely observe and not do any imaging? Is it worth the thousands to get into imaging?

Edited July 28, 2023 by nat456

[John]

Hello and welcome to the forum.

I have been solely observing for 40+ years. It may be a minority pastime these days though 🙄

In defence of imaging (which I don't do) you do not have to spend "thousands" to get into it. You do need to give more thought to your mount though. This is very important for the imaging side of amateur astronomy.

 

 

 

[Elp]

Whether it's worth it is down to your own personal circumstances. I do it mainly because of my local light pollution, can't really see anything of significance visually other than stars, put a camera on and wow, they're actually there in plain sight. Truly deep sky takes some doing (and cost), and mostly relies on good post processing skills in software, otherwise the images just look like stars have been captured if looking at linear files captured with astro cameras. An option for you is to do EAA (electronic assisted astronomy), it works like astrophotography but you're usually looking at a live camera view so don't really need precise scope alignment with the sky or tracking (the software is stacking images in real time improving the view every time it captures another image on the same target), a camera works well because it's capturing over time, your eyes only see at the time. With your current scope you could add an Asiair mini, ZWO 224 or 485/585 MC colour camera, power the air with a usb power bank, and control it all with your phone via an app, no computer needed. The air has a live viewing mode which can stack in real time. Other solutions exist such as attaching a DSLR to your focus tube, but an astro camera will be more sensitive. Other computer controllers also exist which won't limit you to specific manufacturer devices like a raspberry pi loaded with Stellarmate or Astroberry or a Windows Mini PC running free astro software.

If you're interested in AP, have you not got a phone or basic camera you can put onto a fixed tripod? It's how I started by capturing wide field milky way shots with a compact camera, they can also capture the smudge of Andromeda when it's up due to its size and magnitude.

If you get the bug for it, be warned, it'll quickly drain your resources.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Elp

[bosun21]

I only do visual observing and thoroughly enjoy it. I get great satisfaction and tracking down my targets then viewing them to try and tease out more details. I tried AP but it wasn’t what I was looking for in the hobby. I may dip my toes in to a bit of EAA down the road with one of my telescopes as all the complexities of processing isn’t for me.

[RobertI]

Out of interest what did you hate about the 5” SCT?

I echo what @Elp said about imaging. I tried imaging with a small APO, cheap EQ mount and a DSLR which I already had. I had to buy some adaptors, reducer and cables, but the results were pretty good. I invested in a guide cam and scope and things got even better, but I stopped there before costs really began to spiral, which they do if you get serious about imaging. I repurposed my mono guide cam for EAA, which I found a lovely simple setup for my light polluted skies, and did for a few years. I’m in a darker spot now and do mostly visual but it’s nice to have the EAA in the back pocket. 

[woldsman]

Did some observing last night. Up until midnight, the sky was partially clear. Conditions were a nonstarter for imaging but 90 minutes of observing was possible. Took the Tal 1 in the car boot to a single track lane with a clear horizon. Just did some Lunar  - Sinus Iridum was incredible with the bright ridge seeming to hang in the terminator. Would have made a great image but then again the Moon was low in the sky so maybe not. Halfway through the session, a large lorry rumbled down the track but I flagged it down with a torch so it didn’t take me out. Set up and take down just took a few minutes and I was in bed by 1pm so able to get up for work today at 7am. It’s good to have an option for visual even if it’s just a pair of binos or a small scope. In the cloudy U.K. you get more sessions per annum & the gear gathers less dust.

[Richard N]

10 hours ago, nat456 said:

So my question is does any one solely observe and not do any imaging? Is it worth the thousands to get into imaging?

I'm visual only. Never really fancied imaging. Far too much to go wrong. If I really want to get stumped with software and hardware I can always resort to trying to do a Windows update.

I often wonder how "real" the images we see are anyway. People seem to spend hours manipulating them to make a pretty picture.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Richard N

[teoria_del_big_bang]

On 28/07/2023 at 11:57, Richard N said:

Never really fancied imaging. Far too much to go wrong.

Can't argue with that 🙂 , but as an imager the challenge to get everything working and giving good clear images was just part of the hobby for me and a feeling of satisfaction when achieved. Although some foul language was probably heard in the still of the night whilst getting there 😂.

On 28/07/2023 at 11:57, Richard N said:

I often wonder how "real" the images we see are anyway. People seem to spend hours manipulating them to make a pretty picture.

Something I kept asking myself for a long while when first getting into imaging and a very valid concern. After much thought I do think that so long as you keep the images containing pretty much what is in the original images (I think that some amount of noise removal and a little sharpening is always necessary)  then yes I do think they are certainly valid images, yes you are manipulating the various light frequencies so that maybe the feinter colours are made stronger than others and changing colours to see the feinter stuff, whether that can be called real is debatable.
But I think if the signal is present in the original images, no matter how feint, then the image is still true, if not real.

If a real image is only what the human eye can see then no they are not real, but to a lesser degree so is what we see when observing as most of that would not be visible without enlarging the target image and vastly increasing the light going into the eye.

Agreed the fantastic colours in the images are either vastly exaggerated or not even true colours in the case of NB as we are looking at frequencies of light we are not even capable of detecting so have to map colours we can see to them.

But I find it difficult to compare Imaging and visual as whilst both involve aiming some form of lens towards the night sky (or day if solar) they are totally different and ideally use different equipment. Some people do both and others end up either only imaging or observing.  Its a bit like comparing Sailing, speed boating and wind surfing. They all involve water, they all provide entertainment and thrills for participants but all so different.
Whichever, you choose the idea is to enjoy it, if it is not enjoyable (albeit frustrating at times) then why bother 🙂

Steve

Edited July 29, 2023 by teoria_del_big_bang

[Elp]

Sometimes when I can be bothered to do visual (due to the disappointment of LP where I am), I can utilise my flip diagonal with my refractor, camera being used to plate solve and goto, then switch to an eyepiece with the flip mirror. Then I can switch back to the camera to take a quick image or short EAA run. It's quite straightforward once you've done it and have the equipment to do so.

[Stu1smartcookie]

On 28/07/2023 at 11:57, Richard N said:

I'm visual only. Never really fancied imaging. Far too much to go wrong. I often wonder how "real" the images we see are anyway. People seem to spend hours manipulating them to make a pretty picture.

TBH , i think you are right , to a degree ... let me explain ... i once sent a message to a well known YouTuber asking why he removed stars that were in front of a DSO. His reply was ... Photography is a form of art and is therefore subjective . He is right , of course , but ,the reason i look at a smudge in the sky is to see the faint galaxy or the cluster of stars as they are to my eyes .

I see all sorts of differing colours when i view photos people have taken , especially on the Orion Neb and , even more so when looking at pictures of Jupiter ... Have you seen some of the variations in the cloud bands ??? Having eaid all of that , have you seen some of the long exposures people take when focussing on water ?... once again its an artform , as water definitely doesnt look like that . 

I suppose the point is people invariably want their pictures to stand out . I am certainly in the camp of what i see through the EP , as grey as it is , is reality to my eyes . This is why i really like mono astro photography photos . 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Stu1smartcookie

[Elp]

I think a lot of AP is the satisfaction of reaching the destination. You can just as easily look online at images, but there's no self gratification in doing so. When I first imaged M16, the joy of capturing the pillars of creation from a back garden within 2-3 hours in a lower resolution but still comparable to a multi million dollar space telescope is difficult to translate in words if you haven't tried it yourself. Doing the necessary software manipulation on the data to get to that point also provides a sense of achievement. It boils down to the same old arguement, why paint when you can take a photo. You do it for the experience of having done it yourself, in an interpretation of your own, even though for AP we strive for "realism". 

Back to topic, it's worth it, but only if you're willing to put in the work, temper your expectations and determine the value you're getting from such input.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

5 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

I suppose the point is people invariably want their pictures to stand out . I am certainly in the camp of what i see through the EP , as grey as it is , is reality to my eyes . This is why i really like mono astro photography photos . 

Not that long ago (was about 5 years ago I started imaging and joined SGL) people seemed to post a lot of mono images, yes many were using NB filters so not true to our eyes, but these mono images seem to be be rare these days.
I too do like a nice mono image and agree it is more realistic so why have I never posted one 🤔, i guess the temptation to look further into the image to bring out what is there but we cannot see, whether too feint or not within our visual spectrum is just too great. And whilst maybe hubble started the big desire for most imagers to seek out these spectrums beyond what we can see I guess to some extent it is necessary to find out what is in fact out there. Maybe similar to X-Rays and ultra sound images, of course we could never see these images naturally but no denying what they show is actually real and how much have they helped us in many aspects of our lives ?

Steve

[Stu1smartcookie]

8 hours ago, bosun21 said:

all the complexities of processing isn’t for me.

My sentiments exactly . I did a bit of imaging , i got lucky with a photo or two of M82 , but the processing was a complete chore ! I admire anyone who has the patience to sit in front of a screen but for me ...nah . Although , like you @bosun21 EAA is a bit of a bridge between the two hobbies , something i will inevitably get into when the gas giants can be properly seen without clumps of thick cloud obscuring the view 

 

[lunator]

I am mostly a visual astronomer and I still very much enjoy finding objects and teasing out details. I do have astro cameras but have never wanted to image faint fuzzies, I do enjoy trying to tease out planetary  detail. 

I would recommend starting with visual but imaging with a colour camera is a good way to see if it is for you.

Cheers

Ian

[nat456]

On 28/07/2023 at 02:04, RobertI said:

Out of interest what did you hate about the 5” SCT?

I echo what @Elp said about imaging. I tried imaging with a small APO, cheap EQ mount and a DSLR which I already had. I had to buy some adaptors, reducer and cables, but the results were pretty good. I invested in a guide cam and scope and things got even better, but I stopped there before costs really began to spiral, which they do if you get serious about imaging. I repurposed my mono guide cam for EAA, which I found a lovely simple setup for my light polluted skies, and did for a few years. I’m in a darker spot now and do mostly visual but it’s nice to have the EAA in the back pocket. 

On 27/07/2023 at 21:56, Elp said:

Whether it's worth it is down to your own personal circumstances. I do it mainly because of my local light pollution, can't really see anything of significance visually other than stars, put a camera on and wow, they're actually there in plain sight. Truly deep sky takes some doing (and cost), and mostly relies on good post processing skills in software, otherwise the images just look like stars have been captured if looking at linear files captured with astro cameras. An option for you is to do EAA (electronic assisted astronomy), it works like astrophotography but you're usually looking at a live camera view so don't really need precise scope alignment with the sky or tracking (the software is stacking images in real time improving the view every time it captures another image on the same target), a camera works well because it's capturing over time, your eyes only see at the time. With your current scope you could add an Asiair mini, ZWO 224 or 485/585 MC colour camera, power the air with a usb power bank, and control it all with your phone via an app, no computer needed. The air has a live viewing mode which can stack in real time. Other solutions exist such as attaching a DSLR to your focus tube, but an astro camera will be more sensitive. Other computer controllers also exist which won't limit you to specific manufacturer devices like a raspberry pi loaded with Stellarmate or Astroberry or a Windows Mini PC running free astro software.

If you're interested in AP, have you not got a phone or basic camera you can put onto a fixed tripod? It's how I started by capturing wide field milky way shots with a compact camera, they can also capture the smudge of Andromeda when it's up due to its size and magnitude.

If you get the bug for it, be warned, it'll quickly drain your resources.

I do have a pretty good phone but I’ve never bothered with the night sky app I think it’s called. Because I felt it would never be of any value, like it wouldn’t turn out well. Now I think I will give it a go. I do not have a camera besides my phone, it is definitely something I will invest in soon because I love birds and would like to photograph them as well.

[Stu]

41 minutes ago, nat456 said:

I do have a pretty good phone but I’ve never bothered with the night sky app I think it’s called. Because I felt it would never be of any value, like it wouldn’t turn out well. Now I think I will give it a go. I do not have a camera besides my phone, it is definitely something I will invest in soon because I love birds and would like to photograph them as well.

With modern day phones it is certainly possible to take some rewarding images. The latest Google Pixel Pro phones take longer exposures and stack them to get amazing results.

These two are the worst and best of my DSO imaging with a phone. One is a 1 second exposure on an iPhone 6 I think, the second a 4 minute exposure on an Google pixel 6 Pro. It’s amazing how technology has advanced and over the years.

 

[Marvin Jenkins]

3 hours ago, Stu said:

With modern day phones it is certainly possible to take some rewarding images. The latest Google Pixel Pro phones take longer exposures and stack them to get amazing results.

These two are the worst and best of my DSO imaging with a phone. One is a 1 second exposure on an iPhone 6 I think, the second a 4 minute exposure on an Google pixel 6 Pro. It’s amazing how technology has advanced and over the years.

 

I am at that crossroads that your pictures represent. I started Astro six years ago with a 5” newt on an eq2. Nothing wrong with the newt, everything wrong with the eq2.

I quickly upgraded to an EQ5 pro Synscan and chucked on a a dslr after racing through the messier list without really observing.

I got some nice images, M81/82, M31, Iris, Great Orion Nebula etc. But the more I added added to the kit  (60mm guide scope, 120mcs cam) laptop and learning the software I quickly fell away.

I look at the cost of Astro cameras, filters, mini computers and software and wonder if it is a lot of cost that will be totally obsolete in just a few years. My guide cam was once a good planetary camera! Probably still is.

All my small purchases since have been to build a good grab and go (at the heavier end of go) using that original 5” newt. 
I have added a home made Badder solar filter so g and g is daytime as well as night.

I know I will go back and do some AP in the future when it is convenient, but the G and G has me focusing on getting a 16” truss tube Dob with a couple of decent EPs so I can galaxy and comet hunt.

I think of it as my one big lifetime telescope purchase. One day hopefully a long time from now my eyesight will fail or I will not be here in which case I will have made provision for it to go to a much younger home.

Marvin

[VNA]

Hello, it all depends if you want the "actual" and personal experience or a technological experience?
The second will remove you from the "actual"  experience. If one wants to see images that are better than visual, the internet is full of beautiful images, but the personal experience is gone.

Attaching a camera to you set up will require more time to set up and adjust, taking away that "je ne sais quoi?"

[VNA]

Hello Stu and everyone,

A photo wether it is you own or from someone else, will take you away from the personal experience. Besides, there is always someone with a better image.
Also taking a picture become so technical and separate you from the actual moment even if it is 1,500 years later.

[Stu]

11 minutes ago, VNA said:

Hello Stu and everyone,

A photo wether it is you own or from someone else, will take you away from the personal experience. Besides, there is always someone with a better image.
Also taking a picture become so technical and separate you from the actual moment even if it is 1,500 years later.

Hi VNA,

I’ve removed the quote from your post as it was not something I said, nat456 did.

To be clear, I’m a visual astronomer, who just takes the odd smartphone image as a record. The M42 image I posted just involved attaching the phone to the eyepiece, focusing and then pressing the shutter. 4 minutes later it was done and I was observing again. Quite often for moon and sun shots I don’t even bother mounting the phone, I just handhold it so I don’t lose much observing time.

[VNA]

33 minutes ago, Stu said:

I’ve removed the quote from your post as it was not something I said

Hello Stu, so sorry and thank you to correct me, will fix right now.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Stu, not sure of what quotes you are referring to?

Edited July 29, 2023 by VNA

[Stu]

48 minutes ago, VNA said:

Hello Stu, so sorry and thank you to correct me, will fix right now.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Stu, not sure of what quotes you are referring to?

Hi, no problem, I think the quoting just got itself confused. This is what it originally said, but the quote should be attributed to @nat456. Not sure what went wrong 🤪

 

[Jules Tohpipi]

After decades of being visual only I've recently joined the ranks of EAA (aka EEVA) enthusiasts. In summary, it's a great supplement for visual astronomers who don't have the time, budget, or inclination for full-on astrophotography.

I'm keeping the EAA quick and simple but am already astonished with the results. How simple? I find the targets same way as visual using my alt-az goto, remove the eyepiece, and drop my ZWO ASI585MC camera (with supplied 1.25 inch nose-piece attached) into the diagonal. The USB lead from the camera goes into my laptop where I watch the image live on the screen. Now I see fainter objects in real time better than I've ever seen them through the dob. The only additional cost has been the camera.

Where the magic happens is in the software running on the laptop. I prefer to use SharpCap which is free (or £12/year for the more techie Pro licence) or alternatively you could use the software included with the ZWO camera. The Live View button is good for bright objects. For DSOs you hit the Live Stack button. This prompts the camera to take an ongoing burst of short exposures (e.g. five seconds each) which are stacked automatically in front of your eyes to tease out far more detail and brightness from your faint fuzzy. That live stacking process also corrects for field rotation.

This is where EAA differs to astrophotography - it's based on much shorter exposures which the software builds automatically to view in real time and can be used with alt-az mounts.  There's other benefits also, but I don't want to waffle too much.  Those interested can find out more in the EEVA (aka EEA) forums here at SGL!

Is it any less of a kick because the photons come from a screen rather than through through some glass? Absolutely not. It's still using my telescope and being viewed live right now. Plus I can put an eyepiece back in the diagonal whenever I want

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by Jules Tohpipi

[Xsubmariner]

17 hours ago, VNA said:

Hello, it all depends if you want the "actual" and personal experience or a technological experience?
The second will remove you from the "actual"  experience. If one wants to see images that are better than visual, the internet is full of beautiful images, but the personal experience is gone.

Principally being an Imager I find this statement disappointing. It implies imagers don’t achieve a personal experience which is rubbish. Every time I capture my first image of a new target I am in awe of the beauty and amazed at the DSO’s detail. Then with Narrowband my experience is enhanced as each specific filter captures different elements of the targets. During post processing I can clean the data and enhance different components with the image to expose the fine structural interaction.

[saac]

20 hours ago, VNA said:

Hello, it all depends if you want the "actual" and personal experience or a technological experience?
The second will remove you from the "actual"  experience. If one wants to see images that are better than visual, the internet is full of beautiful images, but the personal experience is gone.

 

Or if you want you could do both!

Jim