Jump to content


Photo

A term I hate hearing

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#51 bvillebob

bvillebob

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2014

Posted 19 August 2014 - 03:59 PM

It seems to me that for most younger people coming into the hobby that setting and managing realistic expectations is the most difficult part of attracting and keeping newcomers.  They're grown up with Hubble and other images and they're expecting large, colorful detailed images.  Heck, they figure if they're going to spend a couple of grand on a telescope images ought to look a lot better than what they can see on the net or why bother?

 

I think it's important to explain to newcomers that most objects are going to be faint and vague through most amateur gear, that with luck and dedication details can be teased out, but that the most important part of seeing many objects is the proverbial "averted imagination" fueled by knowing and understanding what you're really looking at.  Very few extrasolar objects are visually stunning through typical gear under typical skies, it's the knowledge and understanding of what's being observed that can make it spectacular.



#52 Ed Holland

Ed Holland

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2319
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2010
  • Loc: San Jose, CA and Oxford, UK

Posted 19 August 2014 - 06:10 PM

cotton balls.. 

Well that was a bit rude. There's no need for name calling, just because I expressed an opinion :lol:


  • tigerroach likes this

#53 penguinx64

penguinx64

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1491
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Holland

Posted 19 August 2014 - 06:30 PM

I saw the Great Cluster in Hercules last week.  It was both Faint and Fuzzy.  I was expecting it to be more 'Great'.  I could not see any individual stars with my scope.



#54 Steve Harris

Steve Harris

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 21 May 2010

Posted 19 August 2014 - 06:30 PM

The first time I saw M13 at a star party (lots of LP, Moon out), I wish I was told it would be a faint fuzzy!  I expected to see M13 as I did in books.

 

I always much prefer globulars in scopes to their photographs, which don't do much for me.  Not much subtlety in the photos, nor are the stars beautiful little ephemeral pinpoints like they are through the scope.



#55 Feidb

Feidb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1790
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Nevada

Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:27 PM

M-13 does look like a faint fuzzy in my grandson's 76mm (3-inch) Cometron. It comes alive in an 8-inch scope. In my 16-inch, fugeddaboudit.

 

Aperture makes a different with most globulars. As for galaxies... well...



#56 galexand

galexand

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Bloomington Indiana

Posted 20 August 2014 - 12:02 PM

Personally, I think the term "faint fuzzy" is brilliant for setting low expectations.  Open clusters and, say, M42 orion nebula are not faint fuzzies.  But unless you have very dark skies, galaxies are faint fuzzies...  And unless you have a relatively large telescope, most globulars are just faint fuzzies too.

 

I think some people do find faint fuzzies to be a let down.  But it doesn't detract from my enjoyment, I really like finding the object and knowing where it is at least as much as I like detailed study. That's one of the reasons I enjoy hopping around with binocs, even though *everything* is a faint fuzzy (at best) in those, with how my hands shake.



#57 maugi88

maugi88

    Postasaurusrex

  • *****
  • Posts: 4033
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013
  • Loc: SE MN

Posted 20 August 2014 - 04:48 PM

Last time I was observing I saw a lot of faint fuzzys. That is what they look like and so its the term I use. Many newcomers have unrealistic expectations of what can be seen in the EP. I get excited about seeing DSO's even when they are faint and well, fuzzy.



#58 Pinbout

Pinbout

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8282
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2010
  • Loc: You can't see me...

Posted 20 August 2014 - 08:10 PM


 

And unless you have a relatively large telescope, most globulars are just faint fuzzies too.

 

 

M22 looks like a cotton ball, not a faint fuzzy...goodnight.gif


Edited by Pinbout, 20 August 2014 - 08:11 PM.


#59 DarkSkysRFun

DarkSkysRFun

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Posted 20 August 2014 - 11:34 PM

 

cotton balls.. 

Well that was a bit rude. There's no need for name calling, just because I expressed an opinion :lol:

 

lol  :lol:



#60 17.5Dob

17.5Dob

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Colorado,USA

Posted 20 August 2014 - 11:56 PM

How about un-illuminated featureless objects ?

Like it or not, most of relish the challenge of tracking down objects at the limit of our OTA's, at which point they're faint and fuzzy, at best.



#61 Philler

Philler

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 21 August 2014 - 12:10 AM

Tell you what: I'll go along with the term faint fuzzes and accept it and not complain.  I guess I'll meet half way and settle this and say it's acceptable referring to deep sky objects.  BUT, only on the condition that I can use the word "scoping".  And "scopers" as an easy to remember name for us that identifies who we are and what we do. After all, there are plenty of fishermen, hunters, noodlers, and bull frog hunters, and they have easy- to-remember names for who they are and what they do.  So, instead of amateur astronomers, astronomers or some other titles, how about just scopers for who we are?  

Actually, I got tagged with the name "scoper" at work many years ago.  Like someone would ask, "Did you go out scoping this weekend"?  At first I didn't like it, but I actually starting liking it after a while. 

I find myself sometimes using the term scoper and scoping here on CN.  And I hope it catches on more.  Maybe instead of worrying about whether to refer to yourself as an amateur astronomer, or astronomer, or double star observer, or variable star observer, astrophotographer,  and trying to explain to the public what that means, you can simply say, "I'm a scoper" and everyone will know who you are and what you do.

 

Now I ask you, wouldn't you like to be known as a scoper who scopes for faint fuzzies? 


Edited by Philler, 21 August 2014 - 12:22 AM.


#62 BigC

BigC

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3334
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2010
  • Loc: SE Indiana

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:06 AM

Faint fuzzy is what they are in most privately owned telescopes.

 

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet but if you don't call it a rose who will know what you mean ?

 

Much Ado About Nothing.



#63 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11505
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:11 AM

Faint fuzzies being chased down by scope dopes.......

 

You just might be a scope dope if...........



#64 JimMo

JimMo

    I'd Rather Do It Myself

  • *****
  • Posts: 5221
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Under the SE Michigan lightdome

Posted 21 August 2014 - 10:43 AM

Now I ask you, wouldn't you like to be known as a scoper who scopes for faint fuzzies? 

 

Faint fuzzies being chased down by scope dopes.......

 

You just might be a scope dope if...........

 

Tell you what,  I will never use the term faint fuzzy again as long as we don't use what you guys are suggesting.  Really.   :whistle:


Edited by JimMo, 21 August 2014 - 10:46 AM.


#65 izar187

izar187

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006
  • Loc: 43N

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:22 AM

Tell you what: I'll go along with the term faint fuzzes and accept it and not complain.  I guess I'll meet half way and settle this and say it's acceptable referring to deep sky objects.  BUT, only on the condition that I can use the word "scoping".  And "scopers" as an easy to remember name for us that identifies who we are and what we do. After all, there are plenty of fishermen, hunters, noodlers, and bull frog hunters, and they have easy- to-remember names for who they are and what they do.  So, instead of amateur astronomers, astronomers or some other titles, how about just scopers for who we are?  

Actually, I got tagged with the name "scoper" at work many years ago.  Like someone would ask, "Did you go out scoping this weekend"?  At first I didn't like it, but I actually starting liking it after a while. 

I find myself sometimes using the term scoper and scoping here on CN.  And I hope it catches on more.  Maybe instead of worrying about whether to refer to yourself as an amateur astronomer, or astronomer, or double star observer, or variable star observer, astrophotographer,  and trying to explain to the public what that means, you can simply say, "I'm a scoper" and everyone will know who you are and what you do.

 

Now I ask you, wouldn't you like to be known as a scoper who scopes for faint fuzzies? 

Not especially.



#66 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:30 AM

Hmmm, dim dust bunnies? Faint furballs?



#67 Pinbout

Pinbout

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8282
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2010
  • Loc: You can't see me...

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:59 AM

 

Tell you what: I'll go along with the term faint fuzzes and accept it and not complain.  I guess I'll meet half way and settle this and say it's acceptable referring to deep sky objects.  BUT, only on the condition that I can use the word "scoping".  And "scopers" as an easy to remember name for us that identifies who we are and what we do. After all, there are plenty of fishermen, hunters, noodlers, and bull frog hunters, and they have easy- to-remember names for who they are and what they do.  So, instead of amateur astronomers, astronomers or some other titles, how about just scopers for who we are?

 

 

I have no problem with that. my son always ask," are you going telescoping?"



#68 Chuck Hards

Chuck Hards

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 6085
  • Joined: 03 May 2010
  • Loc: The Great Basin

Posted 21 August 2014 - 12:19 PM

I always get a warm fuzzy when observing faint fuzzies.  



#69 jethro

jethro

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Rockefeller, Pa

Posted 21 August 2014 - 01:06 PM

Isn't scoper a bit proctologist-ish?



#70 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11505
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 21 August 2014 - 03:29 PM

what's wrong with scope dope????  It is an addictive hobby....



#71 Philler

Philler

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 21 August 2014 - 06:17 PM

I always get a warm fuzzy when observing faint fuzzies.  

 

I might just ask the bartender to make me a faint fuzzy and see what he says.  



#72 karstenkoch

karstenkoch

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 673
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2012
  • Loc: GMT+9

Posted 21 August 2014 - 06:21 PM

I think it's important to explain to newcomers that most objects are going to be faint and vague through most amateur gear, that with luck and dedication details can be teased out, but that the most important part of seeing many objects is the proverbial "averted imagination" fueled by knowing and understanding what you're really looking at.  Very few extrasolar objects are visually stunning through typical gear under typical skies, it's the knowledge and understanding of what's being observed that can make it spectacular.


This is a common theme throughout these forums and amateur astronomy in general. I couldn't agree more. Usually it's offered by those who have logged their fair share of time at the eyepiece and keep going back for more.

You think it's hard getting people interested in fweint fwuzzies? Try explaining to your office mates why you stare at double stars all night. They are neither faint nor fuzzy, but they're ... what? just two points of light?

Edited by karstenkoch, 21 August 2014 - 06:27 PM.


#73 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11505
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 21 August 2014 - 06:36 PM

Better then walking up to your boss and saying: Hey, I saw Uranus last night........



#74 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 570
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 21 August 2014 - 07:04 PM

You can read the term also as a praise: everybody can target a brigth star, or one of the 7 [sic] Planets, but to get a faint, feeble path of light, that is the quest...only those with skill, piety, endurance to adverse weather and chill :grin:

 

Think of luxury items: they are precious because they are extremely difficult to obtain, even if sometimes their "beauty" is questionable



#75 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 44765
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 August 2014 - 07:19 PM

Tell you what: I'll go along with the term faint fuzzes and accept it and not complain.  I guess I'll meet half way and settle this and say it's acceptable referring to deep sky objects.  BUT, only on the condition that I can use the word "scoping".  And "scopers" as an easy to remember name for us that identifies who we are and what we do. After all, there are plenty of fishermen, hunters, noodlers, and bull frog hunters, and they have easy- to-remember names for who they are and what they do.  So, instead of amateur astronomers, astronomers or some other titles, how about just scopers for who we are?  

Actually, I got tagged with the name "scoper" at work many years ago.  Like someone would ask, "Did you go out scoping this weekend"?  At first I didn't like it, but I actually starting liking it after a while. 

I find myself sometimes using the term scoper and scoping here on CN.  And I hope it catches on more.  Maybe instead of worrying about whether to refer to yourself as an amateur astronomer, or astronomer, or double star observer, or variable star observer, astrophotographer,  and trying to explain to the public what that means, you can simply say, "I'm a scoper" and everyone will know who you are and what you do.

 

Now I ask you, wouldn't you like to be known as a scoper who scopes for faint fuzzies? 

 

A hunter is not a "gunner" or a "bower", a hunter is someone who hunts.. 

 

Jon








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics