Observing only gets better with experience

I went out with my Orion 80ED on UniStar Light mount and 24mm Panoptic with
Lumicon UHC filter last night and got a really good look at the North
American Nebula and the Veil. I was amazed at how easily I could see these
this year. I've been trying to get a good look at them for about 4 years now
from the yard.

Oddly enough the skies have gotten a little bit worse each year since I
started out in this hobby with the partial solar eclipse of December 2000,
and this is by far the smallest aperture scope with which I've made the
attempt. The naked eye limiting magnitude at zenith here generally fluctates
between mag 5.2 and mag 5.5. On the very best nights I've seen as dim as mag
5.8 straight up. Last night was a mag 5.3 or thereabouts. The Milky Way was
clearly visible as a naked eye haze from north of Deneb down to M8, where I
lose it in the light pollution caused by the state prison about 4 miles
south of me.

Maybe in the past it's been the wrong time of year to look, or maybe I just
haven't had the right idea in my head of where to look and what to expect. I
don't know, but it sure proves that giving up on observational astronomy
before you've got some serious time invested into it, is a mistake. It also
proves that you don't have to have super dark (mag 6+) skies to see either
of these if you use a UHC filter, and know exactly where to look.

Keep at it folks!

Stephen Paul
(4+ years and growing steadily)

If that is true then why do my floaters and other eye debris make
observing less desirable?

That's "big" viewing with such a "small" scope!

With a 7", the Veil puts on quite a show with an O-III filter even under
small city suburban light polluted skies, LM ~ 4.5.

Experience helps as does having seen things in larger scopes. I'll need
to try for the Veil in the Astroscan.

It's also interesting what's viewable under poor conditions. I was out
under ~ full moonlight several weeks ago and was impressed by how
visible the Ring Nebula was even under such light-drenched conditions.
Used a Sky Glow filter and the ring/donut shape was dramatic.

It's made me wonder what other objects would look good even when the
Moon is out... and that experience would help with.

Larry Stedman
Vestal

Stephen,

I agree completely. Knowing how to observe, what to look for and what to
avoid (like floaters) makes a really big difference. I've coached many
first-timers and novices to see more than they though they could by getting
them to concentrate on what's important. "Where did you see that?" turns
to "I can see it!" pretty quickly when you try to go beyond your usual
threshold. The brain does a fantastic job of image processing when you
reduce the input to what's important and give it some time to work on the
object. It's not natural since we live in a world bathed in plenty of
light so it sometimes takes time to learn that there's really something to
see.

This reminds me of a friend who took some deep sky photos on film years
ago. He sent it in to be developed and printed but the negatives came back
without anything being printed. He sent the negs back with a note saying,
"Please print". They came back again with a reply saying, "Print what?".
The negs went back one more time with a note saying to print it whether
they could see anything or not. The prints showed the objects he was
looking for.

Something else that's learned over time is to take more time at the
eyepiece. Faint detail takes time and a little work to capture, just like
with a camera. I've seen self-proclaimed "serious" amateurs at a really
big scope rush from one object to another to take advantage of the
opportunity to "bag" more objects. They never saw what the scope could
show them and see things slightly improved over what smaller scopes show.
Others take their time and are rewarded with views that they didn't realize
were possible. I guess experience also brings patience.

Mike Simmons

Mike Simmons wrote:
Stephen,

I agree completely. Knowing how to observe, what to look for and what to
avoid (like floaters) makes a really big difference. I've coached many
first-timers and novices to see more than they though they could by getting
them to concentrate on what's important. "Where did you see that?" turns
to "I can see it!" pretty quickly when you try to go beyond your usual
threshold. The brain does a fantastic job of image processing when you
reduce the input to what's important and give it some time to work on the
object. It's not natural since we live in a world bathed in plenty of
light so it sometimes takes time to learn that there's really something to
see.

This reminds me of a friend who took some deep sky photos on film years
ago. He sent it in to be developed and printed but the negatives came back
without anything being printed. He sent the negs back with a note saying,
"Please print". They came back again with a reply saying, "Print what?".
The negs went back one more time with a note saying to print it whether
they could see anything or not. The prints showed the objects he was
looking for.

Something else that's learned over time is to take more time at the
eyepiece. Faint detail takes time and a little work to capture, just like
with a camera. I've seen self-proclaimed "serious" amateurs at a really
big scope rush from one object to another to take advantage of the
opportunity to "bag" more objects. They never saw what the scope could
show them and see things slightly improved over what smaller scopes show.
Others take their time and are rewarded with views that they didn't realize
were possible. I guess experience also brings patience.

Mike Simmons

How do you avoid floaters??

I have a moderately severe floater in my right-hand eye, and if
required, I can 'jerk' my eye so that the floater lies outside the
'foveal' area of vision.

Do you mean there ways to avoid getting floaters in the first place??

Cheers, Stupot

In article ,
says...

.......................
This reminds me of a friend who took some deep sky photos on film years
ago. He sent it in to be developed and printed but the negatives came back
without anything being printed. He sent the negs back with a note saying,
"Please print". They came back again with a reply saying, "Print what?".
The negs went back one more time with a note saying to print it whether
they could see anything or not. The prints showed the objects he was
looking for.
.......................
Mike Simmons

There's a danger in getting the lab to print even if they cannot see
anything on the negatives: how do you know they align the actual
images properly? If unlucky, each print could show half of one image
plus half of the next image - with the image break right on the print.

The solution is to take one "normal" image (anything really -- if you
cannot think of anything better, just point the camera out your window
during daytime and take a picture) at the beginning and another one
at the end of the film.

Bad prints isn't really such a big deal - if the error is in the printing
the prints can always be redone - perhaps at another lab which is better
(but most prints are done by machine nowadays so the differences between
the labs should be minimal). But what's worse is that the film might be cut
right in the middle of an image if these "normal images" for sync purposes
at the beginning and the end of the film are missing. And this applies to
slide film too.

Instead of taking these "sync images" at the beginning and the end of
the film, another option is to request that the film is returned uncut.
Then you can cut it yourself, at proper places.


--
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"Stuart Chapman" wrote in message
...
Mike Simmons wrote:
Stephen,

I agree completely. Knowing how to observe, what to look for and what to
avoid (like floaters) makes a really big difference.

How do you avoid floaters??

I have a moderately severe floater in my right-hand eye, and if required,
I can 'jerk' my eye so that the floater lies outside the 'foveal' area of
vision.

Larger exit pupil.

I have floaters as well, but not what I would consider severe. For example,
they are only a nusance when I become conscious of them in daylight, or
against a white background (such as this text on my computer monitor). At
the eyepiece, floaters are a nusance for me when observing with small exit
pupils, say anything less than 1mm. My solution is to not go below 1mm exit
pupil unless I have no choice (high power wanted, but only accessible scope
is small).

The 24mm Panoptic in the F7.5 Orion 80ED, yields a 3.2mm exit pupil at 25x.
That's plenty large enough that my floaters are not obscuring significantly
(in fact, at that exit pupil my astigmatism becomes mildly apparent). The
other eyepiece I use regularly in the 80ED as a companion to the 24mm, is a
9mm NT6, at 67x and 1.2mm exit pupil. If I want higher power, I move up in
aperture to the 12.5" Dob, which of course allows me to push 300x with a
larger than 1mm exit pupil.

I asked my eye doc the same question and he just shrugged. It is
something that comes with age. What I wanted to know is can they be
removed. Oh well, why do even see eye doctors?

Floaters become distracting at higher magnifications for sure. Guess
we just come down a little.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:35:48 GMT, Stuart Chapman wrote:

How do you avoid floaters??

Poor choice of words, I guess. I meant that you learn to ignore floaters.
I have them and they're a real nuisance during daytime. Finding Venus
during the day is almost impossible for me. They're a problem when birding
as well but I've pretty much learned to ignore "birds" that move back and
forth in my field like floaters do.

Do you mean there ways to avoid getting floaters in the first place??

I wish.

Mike Simmons