Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Galaxy Filters for the Backyard

  • Please log in to reply
258 replies to this topic

#51 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,149
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 10 April 2021 - 03:11 PM

Re post #40

 

Not everybody will find an easy access to a better and safe observing location somewhere, and not everybody will be able to afford the Gas Filter frequently.

 

In an extreme case,

you could recommend people to move for a couple of month to Chile, and then to Australia, in order to avoid using the non-Gas astronomy filters.

 

Lots of members on this Forum have decided for the hobby astronomy, as they can enjoy it from their homes.

 

Otherwise, there is a mass of other hobbies, which require the Gas, as they can't be enjoyed from the backyard, or from the environments of their homes.

 

JG

Most people into astronomy who cannot afford to drive to a better location stick to double stars, bright open clusters, planets and the moon. All of those are not greatly affected by light pollution.



#52 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,149
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 10 April 2021 - 03:16 PM

Oh I almost forgot. I tried using the UHC/LPR filter on The Eskimo Nebula at 200x. The view was still better without the filter in place. I will try both scenarios, (What I tried in post #43 and other things), when the transparency is better. 



#53 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,982
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 10 April 2021 - 04:10 PM

It does not matter if I am observing from the backyard or from another observing site,

I have always with me two filter wheels with the filters, and they are mounted on the zenith prism and on the zenith mirror for the refractor,

 

Two filter wheels mounted.jpg

 

 

Herewith, it is just a fast swap of the zenith diagonals, and dialing on the filter wheel.

 

On the binocular observing sessions on the large DSOs, filters pairs are mounted on the binoculars,

https://www.cloudyni...-on-binoculars/

 

With about 450 DSOs checked with the different filters, including a bunch of the galaxies, my data base on the filters applicability to the DSOs is still somehow growing.

 

The total number of filters for the DSOs in my arsenal, including the filter pairs, is at the moment 24 in 1.25", plus some more filters in the 2" size.

 

Best,

JG

 

 

 

 

 


  • Dave Mitsky, brentknight, DeWynter and 2 others like this

#54 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,185
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 10 April 2021 - 09:08 PM

It does not matter if I am observing from the backyard or from another observing site,

I have always with me two filter wheels with the filters, and they are mounted on the zenith prism and on the zenith mirror for the refractor,

 

attachicon.gifTwo filter wheels mounted.jpg

 

 

Herewith, it is just a fast swap of the zenith diagonals, and dialing on the filter wheel.

 

On the binocular observing sessions on the large DSOs, filters pairs are mounted on the binoculars,

https://www.cloudyni...-on-binoculars/

 

With about 450 DSOs checked with the different filters, including a bunch of the galaxies, my data base on the filters applicability to the DSOs is still somehow growing.

 

The total number of filters for the DSOs in my arsenal, including the filter pairs, is at the moment 24 in 1.25", plus some more filters in the 2" size.

 

Best,

JG

I'm curious if you've tried an 82a filter for galaxies. I've read a few sources on the web that claim such a filter can enhance the view of spiral arms in certain galaxies by suppressing natural skyglow. I'm skeptical that the transmission of cheap 82a's on the market today would allow for it but if you used one, I don't think yours would fall into the latter category.

I, too, keep my filters at the ready with some in a filter slide or perhaps attached to a paracorr or the eyepiece. I do find, of course, that the two scenarios described in this thread, one being observing under a light polluted sky and another under a dark sky, may affect how and why I use them. Additionally, the equipment being used and the skill and experience of the observer using it as well as the observing conditions all come into play. It's not uncommon for me to see an amateur swap a filter in and out of an eyepiece post haste and conclude the filter does or doesn't work. That's a mistake and I've found that it can take several minutes of careful and deliberate observation to detect a subtle but noticeable improvement with the aid of a filter. Varying the eyepiece focal length with a filter can help as well but many observers will never know because they simply haven't done so... 


  • brentknight and j.gardavsky like this

#55 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,982
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 11 April 2021 - 07:25 AM

I'm curious if you've tried an 82a filter for galaxies. I've read a few sources on the web that claim such a filter can enhance the view of spiral arms in certain galaxies by suppressing natural skyglow. I'm skeptical that the transmission of cheap 82a's on the market today would allow for it but if you used one, I don't think yours would fall into the latter category.

I, too, keep my filters at the ready with some in a filter slide or perhaps attached to a paracorr or the eyepiece. I do find, of course, that the two scenarios described in this thread, one being observing under a light polluted sky and another under a dark sky, may affect how and why I use them. Additionally, the equipment being used and the skill and experience of the observer using it as well as the observing conditions all come into play. It's not uncommon for me to see an amateur swap a filter in and out of an eyepiece post haste and conclude the filter does or doesn't work. That's a mistake and I've found that it can take several minutes of careful and deliberate observation to detect a subtle but noticeable improvement with the aid of a filter. Varying the eyepiece focal length with a filter can help as well but many observers will never know because they simply haven't done so... 

I would not take the blue photographic filters, like the 82a for the galaxies.

 

There are some blue color SCHOTT filters for the microscopes, I also have, but even much better are the astronomy interference filters with the passband 400nm up to 510nm from the RGB(CCD) sets, and the Zeiss West 390nm up to 495nm interference filters from the fluorescence microscopy accessories.

 

They have a very high transmittance of 98%, and this high transmittance in the visual UV-violet range is important for observing the galaxies with the so called blue color index.

 

Best,

JG
 


  • RLK1 likes this

#56 brentknight

brentknight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,139
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted 11 April 2021 - 10:28 AM

Most people into astronomy who cannot afford to drive to a better location stick to double stars, bright open clusters, planets and the moon. All of those are not greatly affected by light pollution.

I'm really not sure this is a true statement.  It certainly isn't for me (and it's not because I can't afford it - just don't have the time or energy nowadays).

 

I do see quite a few posts where many have said they have given up on galaxies from their house.  Now their situation is likely completely different from mine, but maybe they have given up a little too quickly.  My experience shows that an 11m smudge of light still looks like a smudge of light from a dark site - I can just see more of them...


  • Jon Isaacs and j.gardavsky like this

#57 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 93,417
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 11 April 2021 - 11:00 AM

I'm really not sure this is a true statement.  It certainly isn't for me (and it's not because I can't afford it - just don't have the time or energy nowadays).

 

I do see quite a few posts where many have said they have given up on galaxies from their house.  Now their situation is likely completely different from mine, but maybe they have given up a little too quickly.  My experience shows that an 11m smudge of light still looks like a smudge of light from a dark site - I can just see more of them...

 

I do the vast majority of my observations of galaxies from the relatively dark, clear skies of the high desert.  I certainly see more detail than I do from my urban (mag 18.6 overhead on a good night.

 

But there's a certain pleasure in hunting down faint doable NGC galaxies and nebulae under challenging conditions so if I happen to be in the city during the dark of the moon, i often make a project out of seeing a few.

 

I haven't tried filters, I was intrigued by David Knisely's review. Still it seems he found relatively little advantage under light polluted skies and my backyard is likely brighter than his.

 

I generally just go with magnification as Don suggested.

 

Jon


  • brentknight and Miranda2525 like this

#58 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,149
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 11 April 2021 - 12:00 PM

I'm really not sure this is a true statement.  It certainly isn't for me (and it's not because I can't afford it - just don't have the time or energy nowadays).

 

I do see quite a few posts where many have said they have given up on galaxies from their house.  Now their situation is likely completely different from mine, but maybe they have given up a little too quickly.  My experience shows that an 11m smudge of light still looks like a smudge of light from a dark site - I can just see more of them...

If you don't have the time or energy, then that's your prerogative to not see what the dark heavens offer. Galaxies from a light polluted city are greatly affected. Don't know where people are getting info that it doesn't get affected.

 

Also an 11th mag galaxy isn't just a "smudge of light" when you take the time and boost the magnification to the point that some detail is seen. This takes time and effort to see. Dark adaptation, etc will aid in that alone. Can't get fully dark adapted in a light polluted sky either.

 

And I stand by what I said in my previous post. I've seen it for myself in the many years I have been observing.


Edited by Miranda2525, 11 April 2021 - 06:57 PM.


#59 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,617
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 11 April 2021 - 02:57 PM

I don't doubt this observation at all.  I think my point in all this discussion is really just about detecting galaxies (and more likely just faint ellipticals) from moderately light polluted skies.  Even where there are broad-spectrum streetlights in the suburbs, these filters might not help much (like my northern skies).  I mentioned earlier, my backyard sky is gently flooded with yellow lights from the neighbors nighttime yard display.  I know of no other way to remove this light other than to experiment with these filters, and to some extent it appears to work and others seem to agree.  From a dark site, I would likely only use these filters to bring out details within the brighter galaxies - not so much to detect them.

 

We most definitely have to deal with the circumstances we are given - and just hope things don't get worse...

Many forget or overlook or don’t want to know that on some nites its just plain nice to have a bit of a challenge to eke out and finally see, even if faint, the galaxy of your choice to observe. If sky conditions are just right you would be surprised at ........... ! Its not all text book viewing, lol ! Oh and by the way, the right choice of filter does improve the contrast enough to catch a glimpse of your target, its still an accomplishment, text book perfect NO !


Edited by LDW47, 11 April 2021 - 03:00 PM.

  • brentknight and j.gardavsky like this

#60 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,982
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 11 April 2021 - 03:20 PM

Many forget or overlook or don’t want to know that on some nites its just plain nice to have a bit of a challenge to eke out and finally see, even if faint, the galaxy of your choice to observe. If sky conditions are just right you would be surprised at ........... ! Its not all text book viewing, lol ! Oh and by the way, the right choice of filter does improve the contrast enough to catch a glimpse of your target, its still an accomplishment, text book perfect NO !

I agree!

It is often great to glimpse something special, like the Pancake Galaxy - the NGC 2685 polar ring galaxy, 42 mil ly away,

even if my little telescope in the backyard shows it just like a small fainf fuzzy (24th April, 2014).

 

And the breathtaking astrophotos can be found on the web, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/NGC_2685

 

Best,

JG


  • LDW47 and brentknight like this

#61 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,185
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 12 April 2021 - 01:46 PM

From my observing session last night in front of my light polluted home with my 16" f4.5 dob, I was able to observe a total of 42 galaxies during a seven hours session. Virtually all of the observations were with a 10mm ethos eyepiece and either a celestron baader uhc light pollution filter or an astrotech broadband filter under highly transparent skies with a limiting visual magnitude of 4.95, the latter being the dimmest star I could see in ursa minor with averted vision. Seeing was so so, ranging from poor to average with intermittent breezes at around 15 mph. 

In general, I found the deepest I could go was a visual magnitude of around 12 and a surface brightness of approximately 13.5. I determined the celestron baader uhc filter gave better resolution of the notch in the black eye galaxy and of the spiral structure in m51 while the astrotech broadband delivered a bit brighter image of fainter galaxies but both allowed for some resolution of ngc 4147, a small globular cluster in coma berenices which can be a challenge for a 14" instrument under dark skies. The most challenging object I observed was Holmberg 342a, aka ngc 4145,  with a visual magnitude of 11.3 but surface brightness of only 14.6. I tried but failed to detect nearby ngc 4151, a type 1 Seyfert galaxy, that the "Observer's Guide" notes has a nucleus that varies by a magnitude with the maxima reaching 12.4. 

I can confidently state that all of my observations were clearly superior with a filter than without one and I wouldn't consider observing without a filter in much the same manner that most observers wouldn't observe without a paracorr in place on a fast reflector. 

I elected to observe from my home again on new moon weekend, due a prediction of windy conditions and/or poor seeing at my usual dark sky location on top of Mt Pinos. Observing conditions were similar to the above except seeing improved to average or better. I could discern the glow of the milky way in Cygnus at around 2:00 am as it rose above my neighbor's house; I usually can't see it until it's closer to the zenith. 

With the improved seeing and excellent transparency, I could see more contrast in the center notch of M82 with the astrotech broadband filter but the Celestron baader uhc excelled on contrast overall on the notch in the black eye galaxy as well as the dark lane in m104, thereby helping to confirm my previous observations with this filter. I observed the Helix galaxy with the astrotech filter and it may be my imagination but I thought I could discern detail in it and it was more defined than just a glowing patch. During a moment of steady seeing, I could discern both IC 749 and IC 750 in Ursa Major simultaneously, making for a very satisfying observation under my observing conditions. I always seem to find the Siamese twins in Virgo to be riding lower than I prefer but I nevertheless found them to be reasonably observable with the celestron baader uhc which screens out more of light pollution than the astrotech broadband filter or my levenhuk cls filter. I agree with starhunter ru, a Russian amateur, that it reduces strong illumination quite well. The more experience I have with the celestron baader uhc filter, the more I like it...


  • CeleNoptic, brentknight and j.gardavsky like this

#62 brentknight

brentknight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,139
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted 12 April 2021 - 02:06 PM

Thank you for the report...

 

I think I have one more evening before the weather turns.  I'll try getting out this evening and observe a bit more in the heart of Virgo.



#63 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,982
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 12 April 2021 - 02:28 PM

I elected to observe from my home again on new moon weekend, due a prediction of windy conditions and/or poor seeing at my usual dark sky location on top of Mt Pinos. Observing conditions were similar to the above except seeing improved to average or better. I could discern the glow of the milky way in Cygnus at around 2:00 am as it rose above my neighbor's house; I usually can't see it until it's closer to the zenith. 

With the improved seeing and excellent transparency, I could see more contrast in the center notch of M82 with the astrotech broadband filter but the Celestron baader uhc excelled on contrast overall on the notch in the black eye galaxy as well as the dark lane in m104, thereby helping to confirm my previous observations with this filter. I observed the Helix galaxy with the astrotech filter and it may be my imagination but I thought I could discern detail in it and it was more defined than just a glowing patch. During a moment of steady seeing, I could discern both IC 749 and IC 750 in Ursa Major simultaneously, making for a very satisfying observation under my observing conditions. I always seem to find the Siamese twins in Virgo to be riding lower than I prefer but I nevertheless found them to be reasonably observable with the celestron baader uhc which screens out more of light pollution than the astrotech broadband filter or my levenhuk cls filter. I agree with starhunter ru, a Russian amateur, that it reduces strong illumination quite well. The more experience I have with the celestron baader uhc filter, the more I like it...

This filter is as well in my arsenal, not a bad filter, really.

 

Thank you for sharing your report,

JG



#64 PJBilotta

PJBilotta

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Portland, Oregon

Posted 13 April 2021 - 12:15 AM

I disagree with the GAS filter being the only option for all galaxy hunting. From my severely light polluted red zone, I am able to capture all of the brighter M and NCG galaxies in Leo, Virgo and more with my humble C8. They are not detailed or as bright as from a darker locale, but most brighter than about 10.5 mag can still be teased out of the gray skies. It's still fun finding them, even though they are only faint smudges. Don't get me wrong, as hopping in the car and getting out of the city is always best. However, it can be just as thrilling seeing M51 as a faint double smudge from your backyard, as it is seeing more of it an hour away. Plus, there's the added pleasure of a nice Scotch and a warm bed just minutes and yards away. Sometimes I worry that we do many of our fellow astronomers who peruse these pages by deterring them them from hunting fainter treasures in light polluted areas. The simple fact is that most in our hobby do live in urban areas and can't get out of the city on an average night. There are plenty of wonders to be seen from a suburban or urban driveway or backyard beyond the Moon, planets, and double stars. It can be done.
  • BFaucett, brentknight and j.gardavsky like this

#65 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 51,089
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 13 April 2021 - 01:41 AM

I disagree with the GAS filter being the only option for all galaxy hunting. From my severely light polluted red zone, I am able to capture all of the brighter M and NCG galaxies in Leo, Virgo and more with my humble C8. They are not detailed or as bright as from a darker locale, but most brighter than about 10.5 mag can still be teased out of the gray skies. It's still fun finding them, even though they are only faint smudges.Don't get me wrong, as hopping in the car and getting out of the city is always best. However, it can be just as thrilling seeing M51 as a faint double smudge from your backyard, as it is seeing more of it an hour away. Plus, there's the added pleasure of a nice Scotch and a warm bed just minutes and yards away.Sometimes I worry that we do many of our fellow astronomers who peruse these pages by deterring them them from hunting fainter treasures in light polluted areas. The simple fact is that most in our hobby do live in urban areas and can't get out of the city on an average night. There are plenty of wonders to be seen from a suburban or urban driveway or backyard beyond the Moon, planets, and double stars. It can be done.

I agree, but severe light pollution is severe light pollution. Galaxies and nebulae in the city in my 12.5" don't look as nice as they do at a dark site in my 4". Star clusters, on the other hand, look great- especially at higher magnifications. Everyone wants to look at nebulae and galaxies because that's what the Hubble images. And they ignore star clusters, which are a lot easier to view.
  • Jon Isaacs, dUbeni, BFaucett and 2 others like this

#66 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 13 April 2021 - 09:43 AM

Just to add from one of my previous posts what was all the rave all about when my reputable dealer recommending me personally using a CLS filter then as in most part only because I’m a little more knowledgeable now than i once was thay are only useful for imaging and AP purposes!?and I hardly hear about them for visual purposes,i also remember my vendors statement that star clusters will be improved (this was so far from the truth) if anything i found the CLS filter of no use whatsoever!? And I would never use filters for open,globular clusters as even in light pollution areas it’s one of thease objects that are forgivable in visual observing.without a doubt the best weapon in your arsenal apart from the scope itself is true dark sky conditions,however I’ve noticed now that some folks are useing UHC filters for galaxy detecting so to speak is this unheard of or a relatively new idea!?as galaxies are generally so faint anyway surly these filters would only work depending on the aperture of your scope in the first place.



#67 brentknight

brentknight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,139
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted 13 April 2021 - 10:04 AM

I agree, but severe light pollution is severe light pollution. Galaxies and nebulae in the city in my 12.5" don't look as nice as they do at a dark site in my 4". Star clusters, on the other hand, look great- especially at higher magnifications. Everyone wants to look at nebulae and galaxies because that's what the Hubble images. And they ignore star clusters, which are a lot easier to view.

Don,

 

I certainly hope homebound astronomers are not ignoring clusters.  Although they can still be difficult to observe (to find anyway) they don't require much more technique than getting good collimation and focus.  And they show all kinds of details.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#68 brentknight

brentknight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,139
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted 13 April 2021 - 10:17 AM

Just to add from one of my previous posts what was all the rave all about when my reputable dealer recommending me personally using a CLS filter then as in most part only because I’m a little more knowledgeable now than i once was thay are only useful for imaging and AP purposes!?and I hardly hear about them for visual purposes,i also remember my vendors statement that star clusters will be improved (this was so far from the truth) if anything i found the CLS filter of no use whatsoever!? And I would never use filters for open,globular clusters as even in light pollution areas it’s one of thease objects that are forgivable in visual observing.without a doubt the best weapon in your arsenal apart from the scope itself is true dark sky conditions,however I’ve noticed now that some folks are useing UHC filters for galaxy detecting so to speak is this unheard of or a relatively new idea!?as galaxies are generally so faint anyway surly these filters would only work depending on the aperture of your scope in the first place.

Supernova,

 

What I'm talking about is using a UHC-S filter to darken the sky background more than the galaxy.  The UHC-S is a misnamed filter if there ever was one as it's more of a Deep-Sky (broadband) filter than a narrowband (OIII/Hβ).  In moderate LP, this type of filter can increase the contrast between the gray sky background and the gray galaxy (in my experience).  For me, this helps with detection - and maybe somewhat on details.

 

While I might not recommend that someone go out a buy one of these filters hoping for miracles, I'm suggesting that if they have one, they should give it a try and see if it helps.  I don't feel it helps at all to just dismiss the idea out of hand.


  • j.gardavsky likes this

#69 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 13 April 2021 - 10:23 AM

Supernova,

 

What I'm talking about is using a UHC-S filter to darken the sky background more than the galaxy.  The UHC-S is a misnamed filter if there ever was one as it's more of a Deep-Sky (broadband) filter than a narrowband (OIII/Hβ).  In moderate LP, this type of filter can increase the contrast between the gray sky background and the gray galaxy (in my experience).  For me, this helps with detection - and maybe somewhat on details.

 

While I might not recommend that someone go out a buy one of these filters hoping for miracles, I'm suggesting that if they have one, they should give it a try and see if it helps.  I don't feel it helps at all to just dismiss the idea out of hand.

Well no set rules in amateur Astronomy i give it a shot trial and error along the way i guess.i own the Astronomic UHC 2” not the S version also the OIII.



#70 brentknight

brentknight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,139
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted 13 April 2021 - 10:36 AM

I would bet neither of those filters would help on galaxy detection.  I'd agree with you there.  I think I'm having some success because my offending lights are mostly in the yellow/orange frequencies.  The filter still passes other frequencies, so the galaxy gets dimmed a bit less than the lights.

 

20210313_180608.jpg

This is my view directly south - right in the direction of the Virgo/Coma cluster

 

 



#71 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,185
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 13 April 2021 - 10:48 AM

I would bet neither of those filters would help on galaxy detection.  I'd agree with you there.  I think I'm having some success because my offending lights are mostly in the yellow/orange frequencies.  The filter still passes other frequencies, so the galaxy gets dimmed a bit less than the lights.

 

attachicon.gif20210313_180608.jpg

This is my view directly south - right in the direction of the Virgo/Coma cluster

Try your luck if you can on NGC3310 in Ursa Major. I've found it to be one of the most filter responsive non messier galaxies thus far. It reminds me of a smaller version of the Eskimo nebula with an added arm. I posted about it in the DSO forum asking for comments but didn't get any replies. It's an overlooked gem...


  • j.gardavsky likes this

#72 brentknight

brentknight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,139
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Foley, Alabama

Posted 13 April 2021 - 10:53 AM

Try your luck if you can on NGC3310 in Ursa Major. I've found it to be one of the most filter responsive non messier galaxies thus far. It reminds me of a smaller version of the Eskimo nebula with an added arm. I posted about it in the DSO forum asking for comments but didn't get any replies. It's an overlooked gem...

Sorry you didn't get any replies.  What's the link?

 

I have to wait till around 11pm for Virgo to get high enough.  UMaj is in perfect position earlier in the evening.  I'll take a look.



#73 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,185
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 13 April 2021 - 11:56 AM

Sorry you didn't get any replies.  What's the link?

 

I have to wait till around 11pm for Virgo to get high enough.  UMaj is in perfect position earlier in the evening.  I'll take a look.

https://www.cloudyni...-in-ursa-major/


  • brentknight likes this

#74 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 51,089
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 13 April 2021 - 12:30 PM

Don,

 

I certainly hope homebound astronomers are not ignoring clusters.  Although they can still be difficult to observe (to find anyway) they don't require much more technique than getting good collimation and focus.  And they show all kinds of details.

When I worked in an astronomy store that sold telescopes in large numbers, a significant number of telescope purchasers were first time buyers.

Almost to a person, what they wanted to see was the objects photographed by the Hubble Telescope, i.e. nebulae and galaxies.

They always seemed crushed when I told them the reason they were imaged by the Hubble was because they were so hard to see from the Earth (slight exaggeration, I know)

and that colors in deep sky objects were the realm of photography, not visual observing.

 

When I started out, the emphasis was on double stars, planets, Moon, and the Messier objects, but I was warned that many of the Messiers would be small, faint, and hard to see.

And the drawings and sketches I could find in books were always poorer than what I saw, so I was always excited to observe more and never disappointed in what I could see.

It looks to me as if the Hubble telescope has completely ruined the expectations of new telescope buyers to expect completely unrealistic results from their scopes.

I tried to tell people to start with star clusters, double stars, planets, Moon and leave the nebulae and galaxies until they get to their second year of regular use of the scope and they have a lot of hours of

viewing through the eyepieces, but you can't tell a beginner not to want to see the Heart and Soul Nebulae just like he saw in an on-line image, even though you know that by the time they've looked

at a few dozen faint fuzzies the Messier objects will suddenly become brighter and more impressive.

 

I do wonder, though, whether being completely honest about what they will see in their new scopes from the backyard would completely discourage the purchase of a telescope in the first place.

What was it that kept all of us going to look at even more faint objects and be happy about seeing some details in those faint targets?  I'm not sure.

And what is it about star clusters that they are so unexciting to so many beginners?  I remember a night not too many years ago when I sat with another experienced observer looking at star cluster after star cluster

and remarking to each other about the shapes, the brightness ranges of the stars, the sizes and beauty of each cluster.  Neither of us had spent much time on clusters for quite some time, but

the remarkable beauty and ease of viewing each one was simply entrancing.  

 

I agree that I hope most beginners don't ignore star clusters, but I fear a lot of them do--even using the topic of this thread as an indicator.


  • Jon Isaacs, dUbeni, brentknight and 1 other like this

#75 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 13 April 2021 - 01:05 PM

I can relate don in what your saying to the newbie or beginner prospective!? As to the average joe so to speak has least of heard of the seven sisters,Pleiades,and to us more season amateurs who have a better understanding and knowledge of the night sky is known in more common toungue as the M45,M13 globular cluster in Hercules is quite well known with maybe an odd one or two that not necessarily the beginner has also of heard of,if thay are interested in amateur Astronomy or not one of my favourites is Caroline’s rose which i beleive is in Cassiopeia!?and as my memory serves me correctly also in Cygnus the swan.star clusters in general are very forgiving in more mediocre light pollution locations and in general I’m thinking that most beginners are not aware of how many there actually are,even in a moderate sized 6”reflector most star clusters really seem to pop out.yes i also agree to a certain degree that Hubble has lead many newbies astray in being what’s achievable and realistically what you can actually see through your first or second telescope maybe,the same remained in the mid 80,s for me with the dreaded department store telescope with ridiculous claims of the potential magnification of 525x with a 60mm refractor with well blown out of proportion images of the planets and nebulous type objects however no star clusters!?and this still happens today not in so much department stores more so on eBay with no brand name telescopes non of us as heard of.


  • brentknight, dudeyes62 and Amblyopia like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics