Hello all, this is my very first post. I go by Vince and I look forward to discussing topics and sharing our knowledge. I have been into visual astronomy for about 2 years now. Once I got to about the first year, thats when I started revisiting some objects and really noticing that I had developed my observing skills such as averted vision, star hopping, knowing when the sky in terms of seeing is good, etc. Basically what I'm trying to say is I feel like I have come a long way from when I was just a beginner. I found cloudy nights relatively early in my visual journey, and one term I always see amateur astronomers frequently use, whether they be visual or imager, to describe galaxies and nebulae visually, is that of "faint fuzzy" or "grey smudge." (After reading many comments, I see that my idea of the general consensus regarding these terms was incorrect. These terms are usually used to denote all DSO and set basic expectations). Based on my personal experience, I have always found this term to be a little misleading. When I hear the term "grey smudge" I take that very literally, as in I imagine the object being viewed is completely featureless sharing no resemblance at all to an image of the object("when I say resemblance to an image," I'm not trying to say the object should be "picture-like" in the detail of its appearance, but rather that it share a somewhat similar shape to its picture. Ex: The Cigar galaxy looks edge-on both photographically and visually). No matter how long you view said object, it will never show any detail or shape. With my Orion XT8 at powers of 40x - 135x, I have seen objects like this of course, whether that be due to 10+ magnitude galaxies(12 magnitude is about my limit), or certain faint nebulae. But generally, I always find some detail within an object, whether that be the general shape(slanted, edge on, face on), size(10` 10` or 20` 20`), or literal detail (details like galactic dust, nebulous features). What I'm trying to say, is that I never really find 2 objects that are alike in appearance, they usually always have some sort of unique characteristic.
Take M81 and M82 for example, M81 is rather large, so, due to light pollution, I simply cannot see the spiral arms. I can see a very obvious core with a faint glow surrounding it. Contrast that with M82, it is smaller, yet the "edge on" appearance is striking and I have been able to consistently tell that one side of the galaxy is almost skewed more than the other. I have also noticed what appears to be a extremely subtle, almost unnoticeable, mottling within the center of the galaxy. M81 could very well be described as a "faint smudge," but even then, with an obvious core and a glow where the arms would partly be, I personally think such a pale description would take away from the reality of it. With M82, I wouldn't even come close to considering it as just a "faint smudge." What have I seen that I truly consider a "faint smudge?" Well, many of the elliptical galaxies that I have seen in Markarian's Chain are basically featureless, although they are decently bright. I would say that in my case, M110 perfectly fits the "faint grey smudge" description, very faint mind you. Last night on the 18th, I was viewing the Leo Triplet, and both M65 and M66 were visually slanted, M65 didn't really appear as "edge on" as I would have hoped but oh well. At 40x, NGC 3628(Hamburger Galaxy), was basically invisible, with its center being just barely visible at 135x. Based on all three of these galaxies, I would say that the Hamburger Galaxy fits the "grey smudge" description. Regarding nebulae, I wouldn't consider planetary nebulae like the Ring nebula and Cat's Eye nebula to be faint smudge's, because they have a defining shape and are decently bright in regards to DSO. The more larger diffuse nebulae definitely lean more to being grey smudges I'll admit that, but I've come to realize that they are impacted by light pollution way more than the majority of galaxies, so trying to see these nebulae visually in decently light polluted skies is going to be rather difficult, especially without a filter like in my case. Regarding globular or open star clusters, I have never seen one that looks like a grey smudge at magnifications of about 40x - 135x, there are always many stars resolved, even more so at higher magnifications of course. Regarding all DSO, galaxy, nebulae, or star cluster, I would say a good 90% of the one's I have visually seen are more than just a "faint grey smudge," even if just by a little.
Why do I mention all of this? Well, I was a beginner. (Although, I have progressed a lot, I realize that in many ways I definelty still qualify as a beginner in some sense). I had always read that many objects would be "faint smudges." So my motivation to continue visually should have gone out the window right? Well, I want to share something interesting with you. I had always read that M33 was very difficult to observe. In my first year of observing I had a go at it...invisible, I could see nothing. The next year, my observing skills had significantly improved, and when I went back to Triangulum what did I see? There was now a, fairly large, faint grey smudge. After many nights of viewing with heavy averted vision, I then could make out what appeared to almost be an S like shape, just barely though. I genuinely never thought I would be able to even see the Triangulum galaxy from my light polluted backyard. It is a similar case with M110. Although I could see M31 and M32 quite easily, I had never been able to see M110, and assumed I never would. Come the second year, and when I revisited the Andromeda galaxy, I took a look at where M110 was supposed to be, and there it was, a very faint grey smudge. So what do I think a "faint fuzzy" is? Well, in my case, it represents the present limit of my observing capabilities, the motivation to continue observing even if there is just a little more detail observed.(I would also say it is something I look fondly upon. As one commentor had put it, I really do have a sense of "endearment" to these faint fuzzies. In fact, I have yet to return from an observing session disappointed) But now we come back to the title of this topic: What are "faint fuzzies" to YOU? How exactly do you personally define a "faint fuzzy?" Is it something of motivation or demotivation? Are they the norm where you observe? Do you think that the majority of objects in visual astronomy should be considered as "faint fuzzies?" Do you think the terms like "grey smudge" and "faint fuzzy" are demotivating for beginners? Feel free to express your opinions on the matter.
(If interested) Note for my observing conditions and equipment: Of course, I usually observe when the moon is not up, or when it is a new moon. My skies are usually clear, and I find most of my dark nights have very little wind turbulence. There are nights when the stars twinkle significantly, but this is usually not the case. Some DSO I can see with my naked eye are the Andromeda galaxy(just barely though, it looks like a very faint grey line right next to Nu Andromedae). I can also see many star clusters such as the Pleiades(direct vision object, pops out in averted vision), the Double Cluster(almost looks like one patch of light, although I can notice it is really two patches of light, fairly easy using mostly averted vision), the Beehive cluster(pretty similar to the double cluster in appearance, although I can see it more easily without the use of averted vision), and the group of stars in Coma Berenices, although those are a bit more difficult compared to the other clusters. I cannot see any nebula naked eye, not even the Orion nebula. The faintest magnitude stars I can see are magnitude 5 with significant averted vision. I can only see very subtle parts of the milky way, such as on the sides of Sadr and Deneb facing away from each other, a faint patch about the size of the moon somewhere in the Scutum constellation, and possibly M24 though I am a little unsure about this one. I use an Orion XT8 and for DSO's I use a 30mm 70* Bresser eyepiece as well as a 9mm 100* XWA Astro Tech eyepiece.
