To tick or not to tick

[lukebl]

This is just a light-hearted comment, so please don't take it too seriously!

Those of you who are birders will know that there's a long-running debate as to whether or not you can 'tick' a bird on just hearing it. For birds like a quail, you are far more likely to hear it than ever get a chance of seeing one. So, can you 'tick' an object if you've imaged it yourself, but that it's too faint to be seen visually?

Sorry if I've seem to have reduced this fine hobby to a 'ticking' game. Just having a bit of fun during cloudy weather.

[Photosbykev]

For my wildlife photography I don't 'tick' until I've got a print quality image of the subject, this will apply to astro as well, when I get into it properly Everyone sets their own standards, if they bother at all that is.

[John]

In Astronomy I guess Pluto would be a candidate for this

With birdwatching, I don't count anything that I've not actually seen but I suppose each to their own - they are hobbies after all

[richbyers]

I suppose u make your own rules. Though I think a substantial image would be needed to satisfy me as having "seen" it. Rich

[Astrokev]

As a birdwatcher and amateur wildlife photographer (please visit my wildlife blog through the link in my sig' !) as well as an amateur astronomer, if you're into listing I think you have to make your own rules and then try stick to them.

Why not have multiple lists - one for objects seen visually, one for objects only seen after image processing, one for objects seen through your own scope etc.

For birding, photographing birds at distance and then identifying them afterwards by zooming in on the digital pic is a good way of confirming ID. Similarly, photographing a large group of birds (say a flock of waders) and then checking the images closley for the odd rarity afterwards poses the same dilemma. Can you claim to have seen the bird, even though it may have been one bird hidden amongst a flock of hunderds, that you couldn't pick out visually at the time?

Decide for yourself and be true to yourself also!!

[matteboy]

I reckon if you've imaged it, you've found it, so yep tick it!

[Moonshane]

ahhhh but did you find it or did the goto?

as others have said, it's really academic what a list is and something we all do for our own enjoyment. make your own rules and stick to 'em. the good thing about astronomy is that it's impossible to see everything in a lifetime so just enjoy the show!

[LukeSkywatcher]

I have seen Jupiter when Uranus was very close to it. I didnt see Uranus but it would have been in my FOV.

Do i "tick" Uranus as having been seen?

LOL.

[matteboy]

Wish I could find Uranus, three attempts now fail, fail and fail! Unless I've seen it and thought it was a star! Expecting a blue disc with some moons but can't figure out how far way to look from Jupiter, always check Stellarium and still can't figure it out!

Not giving up though.....

[Moonshane]

as I'm looking at Jupiter, Uranus is within the finder scope and up from and a little bit left of Jupiter. it's a very small disc and you'd need very high mag and really steady skies to have a chance of moons I suspect. it's not larger than a star in the finder but unlike stars gets bigger with magnification.

[Earl]

I didnt see Uranus as i was not looking for it but i did image it by accident

Imaging for me.

[matteboy]

Do you notice the blue colour? I can go up to 90x mag and just about focus Jupiter, will this be enough to see it?

[Moonshane]

you'll definitely see it at this mag as a pale bluish green disc. it's quite lonely in the finder, not much around it - bear in mind my description was with a 'correct way up finder'.

[John]

Uranus looks like a tiny blueish "pinhead" but not star-like - you can see it is a disk at 100X or more. I believe that it's brightest moons are around magnitude 14 so you would need a very large aperture scope to see them visually.

[matteboy]

I've just been trying to line up my rdf and didn't realise that the image was upside down in the scope, no wonder I haven't found much! I've always though it was just right is left and left is right, what a plum!

[Demonperformer]

Due to appalling light pollution, most of what I do now is imaging with the DSLR, so 'visual ticking' is not really an option for me. And yes, I did 'tick' pluto!

[LukeSkywatcher]

Due to appalling light pollution, most of what I do now is imaging with the DSLR, so 'visual ticking' is not really an option for me. And yes, I did 'tick' pluto!

I'm thinking that the only way i will see Uranus is with imaging through my DSLR.

I dont use a scope with the camera so i dont even know if it is possible to image it on a fixed tripod with stacking of images.

The only clue as to IF i image it will be a blue/green colour of a star near Jupiter.

[sbooder]

For years I dipped on Hawfinch, I used to go birding with friends, and they would always see it, but I only on rare occasion got to hear it. They all agreed that I should tick it but I refused until I saw it with my own eyes.

Of course the other danger is stringing confusion species on call alone, I would challenge anyone if on a twitch for...lets say Citrine Wag, and they ticked it because they said they heard it, Oh yeh, which one of the yellow wags did you tick a citrine.

[Astrokev]

There seem to be quite a few am' astronomers who are also bird watchers. I wonder if this is just coincidence, or whether there is something more fundamental that links these hobbies (apart from both requiring viewing through bits of glass of course)?

[Darren B]

There seem to be quite a few am' astronomers who are also bird watchers. I wonder if this is just coincidence, or whether there is something more fundamental that links these hobbies (apart from both requiring viewing through bits of glass of course)?

Maybe we all like to see and explore the world and universe around us, to see it all in better detail.

Could be that hunter instinct that is within us, to seek it and to find it?

As for tick or not to tick, my preference is to see it with my own eyes.

[sbooder]

For me, it is the love of science and the natural world. My hobbies (Falco subbuteo…he he!) are all science based.

Astronomy

Birding

Lepidoptery

Botany

[Photosbykev]

Photography has been my main passion for well over 30 years. Wildlife mainly but it's the challenge of a new genre or subject and trying to get the best possible photograph that keeps that passion alive.

Star trail images got me into looking upwards and, at the young age of 52, astronomy is the start of a whole new adventure.

[lukebl]

For me, it is the love of science and the natural world. My hobbies (Falco subbuteo…he he!) are all science based.

Same with me. My obsessions since I was a kid have been astronomy and the natural world (Particularly moths. Strangely, another solitary nocturnal activity!)

[sbooder]

Yep, I am a moth trapper, although where we live now, has made the study frustrating. I have permission for next year however from a local farmer, to put a couple of traps on his land near some ancient woodland...I can not wait.

Here is my shot of my one and only

[Astrokev]

Yep, I am a moth trapper, although where we live now, has made the study frustrating. I have permission for next year however from a local farmer, to put a couple of traps on his land near some ancient woodland...I can not wait.

Yep, I agree it's the hunter gatherer instinct that makes listing a compulsion for some (I include myself in this list - a list of listers, now there's a strange irony).

Great picture of the PHM by the way. Fine when stationary but when they fly I tend to panic - moths are my only phobia! Strange, as I love butterflies. 'nout so queer as folk.

For those interested - there's a link to my bird & butterfly images on my astro blog (link below). No images of moths.....