where is the red stuff?

What has already been said about the eye's insensitivity to color in
dim light holds true. However, in addition to the predominant green
hues (from ionized oxygen, I believe), I have seen a bit of pinkish
overlay in viewing some parts of M42 thru a 10" scope under DARK skies.
YMMV.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:56:02 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:

M42, has quite visible colour in many larger scopes (and without
chromatic
aberration being involved!), especially for younger observers. Greenish,
some yellows, and a little red. A telescope cannot make an object
brighter
than it actually 'is', but it can increase the perceived brightness by
the
eye...

I haven't personally noted this, but I know others have. I see a faint
greenish color with M42 whether I view it naked eye, through binoculars,
or through a larger aperture.

Other than M42 and a few strong OIII planetaries, I don't recall ever
seeing astronomical color in anything other than planets and stars.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

About 19 years ago, I viewed M42 through a friend's 17 inch dobsonian
during a very cold winter with excellent seeing, and noted that it had a
pronounced greenish color to it. I was quite amazed, to say the least.
I've never seen it look so well since. I've also seen the ring nebula
through a large aperture telescope, and it appeared to have a beautiful
greenish-yellow tint to it.

George

On 23 Jan 2006 09:38:23 -0800, "urban astronomer"
wrote:

What has already been said about the eye's insensitivity to color in
dim light holds true. However, in addition to the predominant green
hues (from ionized oxygen, I believe), I have seen a bit of pinkish
overlay in viewing some parts of M42 thru a 10" scope under DARK skies.
YMMV.

Your eyes must be very sensitive. Most nebulas have much more red than
green output, but at best they usually appear green to the eye (assuming
they are bright enough to show any color at all). That's because the eye
is much more sensitive to green light than to red. M42 is strongly pink
to a flat-response detector.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

urban astronomer wrote:
What has already been said about the eye's insensitivity to color in
dim light holds true. However, in addition to the predominant green
hues (from ionized oxygen, I believe), I have seen a bit of pinkish
overlay in viewing some parts of M42 thru a 10" scope under DARK skies.



Hopefully not due to bloodshot eyes

pascal wrote:
I am new in Astronomy. I have recently purchased a newton 8" telescope
and have spotted some of the Messier objects and yesterday night for
example got to see M42 with a magnification of 200x. I saw everything
that is in the usual photos except the red color that we usually see in
pictures even of amateurs.

Can someone tell me what's type of telescope you need to see the red
color that makes a real plus.

Others have pointed out that to see deep sky objects as they appear in
photographs you must make photographs.

The stars are an exception; study a field of stars patiently and
differences in color -- sometimes subtle, sometimes very obvious --
will appear to you.

Probably the best example of this is the double star Albireo. Look for
it in the constellation Cygnus this summer. It crosses the meridian at
10:00 P.M. on August 30 of this year, though it is observable well
before that. You will be amazed.

As for M42, many people report seeing the brighter part of the
nebulosity as a pale green. That pale green is very obvious to me.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In addition to what others have said, keep in mind that a telescope
makes extended objects larger, but it doesn't make them brighter. When
you look at M42 with your naked eye, do you see color? (The nebula is
easy to see, with the bright core more than half the size of the Moon.)

If an object is below the threshold of color perception without a
telescope, it will still be so with a telescope- regardless of the size

of the aperture. Indeed, you could travel towards Orion until the
nebula
filled the sky, and it would still only look like a gray or greenish
cloud.

How does this explain the color seen in the eyepiece of stars too
faint to be seen unaided?
Magnificaton also allows the two different
colors of binary stars to be seen individually, instead of mixed as
they
are when seen unaided.

Dan C.

You're not going to see any red color in M42, except possibly in the
very very largest telescopes such as Keck or the Hale 200" at Palomar.
Amateur scopes, even the large ones, don't gather enough light for
the red color to be perceived with the unaided eye.

You see the red color in photos because the photos are time exposures
that have collected far more light than the unaided eye can.

-Paul W.

On 23 Jan 2006 01:13:20 -0800, "pascal"
wrote:

I am new in Astronomy. I have recently purchased a newton 8" telescope
and have spotted some of the Messier objects and yesterday night for
example got to see M42 with a magnification of 200x. I saw everything
that is in the usual photos except the red color that we usually see in
pictures even of amateurs.

Can someone tell me what's type of telescope you need to see the red
color that makes a real plus.

Thanks
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

"decaf" wrote in message
ups.com...
In addition to what others have said, keep in mind that a telescope
makes extended objects larger, but it doesn't make them brighter. When
you look at M42 with your naked eye, do you see color? (The nebula is
easy to see, with the bright core more than half the size of the Moon.)

If an object is below the threshold of color perception without a
telescope, it will still be so with a telescope- regardless of the size

of the aperture. Indeed, you could travel towards Orion until the
nebula
filled the sky, and it would still only look like a gray or greenish
cloud.

How does this explain the color seen in the eyepiece of stars too
faint to be seen unaided?
Magnificaton also allows the two different
colors of binary stars to be seen individually, instead of mixed as
they
are when seen unaided.

Dan C.

Stars are bright, concentrated pinpoints of light. Light from nebulae and
galaxies is diffuse and dim by comparison (and many nebulas are seen due to
reflected light only). Even though a star might be too dim to be seen with
the unaided eye, it's absolute brightness could still be generally quite
high, at least bright enough to see its color. I'm far from an expert on
this, but that is my take on it, anyway.

George

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jan 2006 01:13:20 -0800, "pascal"
wrote:

Can someone tell me what's type of telescope you need to see the red
color that makes a real plus.

In addition to what others have said, keep in mind that a telescope
makes extended objects larger, but it doesn't make them brighter. When
you look at M42 with your naked eye, do you see color? (The nebula is
easy to see, with the bright core more than half the size of the Moon.)
If an object is below the threshold of color perception without a
telescope, it will still be so with a telescope- regardless of the size
of the aperture. Indeed, you could travel towards Orion until the nebula
filled the sky, and it would still only look like a gray or greenish
cloud.

If you want color, you need to use a sensor other than the eye- film or
silicon.


I have to strongly disagree with this idea. Yes, with the unaided eye and
through small telescopes, you don't collect enough photons to activate your
color vision. Now some people have claimed to see color in M42 with larger
telescopes, but I have not seen any with apertures up to 14 inches. But I and
several others will vouch for the fact that you DO see colors, lots of pastels,
and in areas where you know you didn't see them in smaller apertures, when I and
those people used a 60-inch aperture Cassegrain telescope. They were obvious,
clearly perceived, and in color.

And yes, the familiar parts of the nebula are brighter in that 60-inch
telescope.

So obviously parts of the nebula were brighter through that telescope, otherwise
color vision wouldn't have kicked in.

Clear and Steady Nights !
-- Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let inspired figures of light pass by
The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity, and is soon gone

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
pascal wrote:
Thanks all for these infos. I guess there is nothing more to expect
from a LX200 8" then (which I was planning to buy)



Not unless you do astrophotography.

And if you look at those photos in dim light, they'll still look black and
white g.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...n/rodcone.html

Ed T.