25 replies to this topic

[DenisY]

I have made major changes to my site, trying to keep it simple and clear. I always wanted to have a website more like a logbook of my observations, this time i think i'm getting closer to my objective. This site is somehow related to my own personal logbook without personal detail but with astronomics ones. Some improvement left, not much tought, i want to keep it simple.

More archive observation will be added.

Hope you like it.

[NJ Night Sky]

Nice Job

[DenisY]

Thanks Jim

[Chris Graham]

That a great site, i like the layout and even better the sketches. Gives me an idea of what i might see with my scope.

Nice one!

[DenisY]

Thanks Chris, your comment is really appreciated.

[Chris Graham]

np m8 keep up the good work

[FJA]

That is great, Denis. The sort of thing I like to see, anyway. I love the way the website looks like a sketchbook page.

[DenisY]

sorry for the late reply Cygnus, Thanks!

My only problem is i lost all my logs when my PC crashed. So for the moment i can't update my site no more. I'm still trying to figure out how i will.

[DenisY]

I was able to make some updates and little modifications....

[Jeremy Perez]

Denis, great update to your site! That October 23 solar observation was very cool. The detail in the sketch and the formation of that staccato sunspot was fascinating. It looks like your November 13 observation page text is floating over the background graphic in a strange way. Might just be my browser though.

I look forward to future updates!

Jeremy

[DenisY]

Thanks Jeremy

When you say floating, do you mean over the (binder) kind of?

[Jeremy Perez]

Denis, yeah, that's what I meant to say. Your other pages align to the right of the coil binder graphic, but that one page is running across the binder graphic. No big deal. I was still able to read it.

[DenisY]

Darn! I see it correctly.... Hmmm.. can you do me a favor? When you have a minute, delete your temp internet files and your history and refresh, then go back and see, what i'm thinking is you might of visite my site while i was updating it some more and maybe it will come back ok.

Thanks!!!

[DenisY]

I made major changes ...... again...... I hope these will be the last for a moment.

[Jeremy Perez]

Hey Denis, I forgot to respond...I browse on a Mac, and it seems to me that Mac browsers (Safari & Internet Explorer) are pretty tight-fisted with their caches even after clearing them. I viewed it from my office the next day, and that page looked fine.

--woah...I just checked the site, and it looks great!

[DenisY]

Thank you very much Jeremy, i hope you did not mind me adding your site in my links?

[Chris_H]

Nice site. I like the color play

[DenisY]

Thanks Chris!

[Jeremy Perez]

Denis, I don't mind the linking at all. Thank you. I actually need to make updates to my links after 'getting out' a bit more on some excellent observing sites, and I hope you don't mind me adding yours when I overhaul that list.

I just noticed the updates you made to your Messier main page. It looks great--very easy to navigate and see what's in there. Mostly though, I wanted to mention how impressed I am with your globular cluster additions. The sketches are incredible. They convey the look of the clusters very nicely.

I have a question about your technique--for the multitudes of very dim stars in the background of the cluster (M2 for example), are you actually drawing each of them in precise position? Or are you positioning the dozens of main stars...the ones you can reliably draw a bead on, and then stippling in the haze of semi-resolvable stars to build up the background body of the cluster? I've been torn on this issue. One of my astro-sketch heroes, Bill Ferris, advises against the temptation to start tapping the pencil to fill in those dim stars, but to shade those areas instead. Here's what divides me...

If you use shading to represent those barely resolvable stars, you are making a rendering that is as accurate as possible when it comes to saying, yes, I actually saw that star, and that star and that one, etc. On the other hand, using only shading for those areas, doesn't allow you to distinguish between the truly unresolvable haze of stars, and those that are semi-resolvable, granular, flickering in & out of view.

I'm starting to wonder about using judicious stippling on my globular sketches. I think if done responsibly, very lightly, and carefully, it could be used to hint at granularity in the body--as long as I wasn't tempted to use the technique on brighter stars involved in the cluster. That way, it could leave the impression with people looking at the sketch as to whether they could expect to see continuous granularity in the object or not.

Again, I'm not sure that's what you're doing. If you are indeed drawing in each of those dim stars where you saw them, I want to offer my highest commendation and awe at your patience. And if not, I'd like to say how well you are conveying the impression of the dim star granularity. It's given me something to consider.

I do know that stippling is not for everyone though, and that may have a lot to do with Bill's caution. It can be easy to get carried away and give a highly inaccurate representation of a cluster. But if somebody has a knack for it, I'm starting to lean in the direction of making cautious use of it...

(If by suggesting this, I cause anyone to choke on their beverages, I apologize :-O )

Thanks Denis!

Jeremy

[DenisY]

QUOTE
I have a question about your technique--for the multitudes of very dim stars in the background of the cluster (M2 for example), are you actually drawing each of them in precise position?

Answer
No and yes, first I like to say that globular clusters are my favorite object, I like spending time observing them, that being said… you notice that the cluster itself is rather like a smudge (shade) using my finger for variance intensity demonstrating the brighter and dimmer part of the cluster. That’s how I start, making the form of the cluster, in some cases I stop there, like the case of my report on NGC6934 and NGC7003, they look like smudge, no granularity. I then do the stippling to demonstrate that I saw the cluster granularity, if partially resolve I will stipple less and I will also put all the bright stars as I see them. The stars (around) M2 are stars I actually saw and draw as precisely as possible, it get really confusing and difficult, I try to see if there is a pattern and sketch it as I see it, M4 for example, I will also draw the bright stars in (or on) the cluster like M22. In fact I try in every possible case to draw what I see, those sketches can take up to 45 minutes to an hour for me to complete, I do my sketch at the scope side. Some have proposed me to complete the sketches once inside but I know I will forget where all those stars go. Have you notice the cluster, it looks like there some variance of brightness? Also like arms? Sketch of M2 there’s one extending to the northwest, and another at the west? I saw those also on M28 and M13, M71, really impressive. I pay real hard attention to those details; I find that’s what will give them true life, also a feeling of 3D look. But you will hardly see those in a picture.


QUOTE
I think if done responsibly, very lightly, and carefully, it could be used to hint at granularity in the body--as long as I wasn't tempted to use the technique on brighter stars involved in the cluster. That way, it could leave the impression with people looking at the sketch as to whether they could expect to see continuous granularity in the object or not.

Answer
Yes I agree with you Jeremy, done responsibly, very lightly, and carefully will give you a very good sketch (rendering). But even more importantly is to sketch what you actually see, spending time on the object will be your best investment and you will add detail as you get accustoms to the object. This way you will leave the impression that looking at the sketch you can expect to see continuous granularity in the object or not, brighter area or not, a good example for this is M1, really hard to see for me, even on my sketch.


I just hope this answers your question, I’m no expert and I do those reports and sketch for one purpose, so I can recall what I saw, compare my observation over time and display it to anyone willing to share there passion. Galileo draw the moon, sun spots and as of today no one complaint saying that he got it all wrong, but there saying, that’s how he saw it with what he had and where he was, amazing isn’t?

[Jeremy Perez]

...the cluster itself is rather like a smudge (shade) using my finger for variance intensity demonstrating the brighter and dimmer part of the cluster. That’s how I start, making the form of the cluster, in some cases I stop there, like the case of my report on NGC6934 and NGC7003, they look like smudge, no granularity. I then do the stippling to demonstrate that I saw the cluster granularity, if partially resolve I will stipple less and I will also put all the bright stars as I see them.

Very cool. That's what I thought was going on. I forgot to mention that it looked like you were undershading to build up the unresolved body in varying degrees of lightness. Since I started spending quality time on my sketches, I haven't done a globular yet, because I was worrying over this issue. My M11 open cluster sketch suffers from what I think is a poor attempt at shading to indicate graininess. Although stippling on open clusters would probably be a far more slippery slope than globular clusters. Anyway, I'm going to give it a try the next time I make a globservation and see how it turns out. Like you, I want to give an impression of what's visible, and as accurately as possible...it's just hard to get accurate with grain. And grain definitely looks different from unresolved haze, and that's something I'd like to convey.

Jeremy

[DenisY]

Denis, I don't mind the linking at all. Thank you. I actually need to make updates to my links after 'getting out' a bit more on some excellent observing sites, and I hope you don't mind me adding yours when I overhaul that list.

Not a bit! And i feel privilege also! Thanks Jeremy!

[DenisY]

Jeremy here's another example of M2 sketched. ( not by me ) But i found lots of similarity.

http://www.psiaz.com...drawings/m2.jpg

If you want i would like your impression of the sketch.

[DenisY]

Jeremy look at M15 stunning ressemblance!!

http://www.psiaz.com...rawings/m15.jpg

Mine
http://astrosurf.com.../Image/m15n.png

[DenisY]

And this one some similarity on the major star position, but the globular is different.

http://www.jwebdale....et.co.uk/m2.htm

Mine
http://astrosurf.com...t/Image/m2n.png