Anyone else think the view thru a scope is better than pics?

[desertmonk]

I feel like photos of outer space objects, with their long exposures, are more like a painting than anything real. I mean, if one has to stack images, develop the film or load it into a computer, then it isn't as real as looking thru the eyepiece. All that work to get something I can see in a magazine or book, while there are never any good representations of what I can actually see. Neither a drawing or a photo of the orion nebula can match what I see in my 114 mm reflector. What does everyone think?

[Candy]

It's pretty, though. :D

[Mortac]

I have never owned a telescope, but I'm planning to buy one in a couple of years. I'm wondering, how much are you able to see if you'd spend $1000 on a scope? I don't want to cough up too much cash. Will I be able to take pretty pictures of nebulas etc. like I see pictures on the front news page? Or are those pictures taken with very expensive equipment?

[aurora]

Imaging of deep space objects requires a cash outlay and practice.

[hhEb09'1]

Digital has gotten cheaper. With a thousand dollar setup, I think they'd be able to generate some images that they'd be immensely pleased with.

Asking whether the eyepiece or computer screen is better is like asking whether the NBA or the NCAAs are better than my six year old daughter's basketball game.

[lek]

Interesting question really... Of course looking at it through a scope with your own eyes has some more "feeling" to it, than looking pretty pictures in books or screen.
For anyone who has seen the photos in magazines etc, first glance through pretty much any kind of (commercial) telescope can be and usually is quite a disappointment though.

Photographers who later develop an interest in astronomy face yet another agony after starting to take photos of the sky: "If you have to tweak it afterwards, the shot was a failure" or even "if it doesn't look like what i saw with my eyes, its a failure". ;)

When you actually go through all the effort in setting up the equipment for photographing, and editing the photos to get the best result you can get, it's not "just a picture" anymore. :)

One way to think it is simply, "this i would see with that scope+filters etc i coulnd't afford". :D

[stu]

I feel like photos of outer space objects, with their long exposures, are more like a painting than anything real. I mean, if one has to stack images, develop the film or load it into a computer, then it isn't as real as looking thru the eyepiece. All that work to get something I can see in a magazine or book, while there are never any good representations of what I can actually see. Neither a drawing or a photo of the orion nebula can match what I see in my 114 mm reflector. What does everyone think?

Personally, I wouldn't want to choose. While I love looking in a telescope and seeing Saturn, or M42, I can't make out a faint galaxy for anything less than a small fuzzy blob. But if I take a long exposure of it, then I can start to see spiral arms or other features.

For me, it's more of a, "did I see it" or "did I make it." While I like to look at other peoples' images, they don't hold as much awe for me as ones I do myself. For me, the amatuer part of astronomy wouldn't be complete without both the eye observing and the photography part.

[desertmonk]

The big flashy pictures cause an interest in astronomy which isn't realistic. Look in an astronomy magazine and they show a picture of the california nebula, or they'll show M31, and it'll be the hubble view. That image is irrelevant to a backyard astronomer who is working with a scope of 70 to 200 mm. Yes, the eyepiece view has more heart in it than a photo which one has tweaked and massaged into a work of beauty. However, I certainly see the need for imaging in research. There is the case of the german amateur who discovered a supernova while imaging a nearby galaxy a couple years back. Maybe that will be the rational for this expensive aspect of the hobby. It can be like muscians who record everything in the studio so they don't miss that moment of serendipity that is not recreatable.

[hhEb09'1]

Photographers who later develop an interest in astronomy face yet another agony after starting to take photos of the sky: "If you have to tweak it afterwards, the shot was a failure" or even "if it doesn't look like what i saw with my eyes, its a failure". ;)I've known plenty of photographers of non-astronomical objects who had no compunction about tweaking their photos :)

[mickal555]

I love seeing things with my own eyes :D

[badprof]

Personally I enjoy both. I set one scope going with a CCD, have another doing film photography, and then to fill in the time between resetting the exposures, I have a large dob for looking through. Gets the best of all worlds! Also gives me something to do during the day and on cloudy nights!!! :D

[turbo-1]

To the OP: I have done lots of astrophotography through my 6" APO, but there is is nothing like the thrill of visually spotting something that is theoretically far beyond the capabilities of your equipment, even if it's a faint smudge seen only with averted vision. Or perhaps splitting a close double star. There's something more "immediate" about visual observing, and I'm not referring to the time involved in the photography process, but the fact that in visual observing, you focus the photons onto your retina and view the objects directly without intervening equipment.

[Harvestar]

I've known plenty of photographers of non-astronomical objects who had no compunction about tweaking their photos :)

And also, people like Ansel Adams would vary the process of developing their images to produce a different mood (change the contrast or color, soften the image, etc.) even in a dark room. So the digital manipulation like in Photoshop is not that different in many cases. In particular, you are supposed to sharpen the image since digital media have pixels which film doesn't.

In any case, there's places for all things (lovely Hubble images, amateur photography (some of which is stunning and often a much larger field of view than most professional telescopes), and eyepiece observing).

[Mortac]

Since I never owned a telescope and will still wait a while since you seem to have to pay a lot to get what I'm looking for, I'm wondering how much does technology improve for amateur 'spare-time' astronomers? If we'd compare what I get for $1000 today compared to for 10 years ago, and then speculate what I'd get in 10 years from now. Anyone that could give me a rough idea on the technological progress and price falls?

[Fr. Wayne]

I love seeing things with my own eyes :D


Hear ! Hear ! (oops, I mean) See ! See !

[zorbo]

I think a good analogy would be hearing rock music performed live in concert or on CD/HiFi.
Some people attribute a special feeling to hearing it live, yet objectively the quality of the sound is decidedly better when hearing it on CD and a good HiFi.

the view thru an amateur scope is - objectively speaking - disappointing compared to images.

when asked by someone whether buying a telescope is worth it, I would ask whether that person can indulge in looking at the stars with just the naked eye or a binocular.

if the answer is yes, then there is a high chance that person can also reap enjoyment from a telescope.

to compare the view through any amateur telescope to any of the (mostly deep-space) images found in books and media would be very misleading and lead to disappointment.

cheers,
and clear skies !

-z.

[Wolverine]

What does everyone think?

I agree with the last part of your post and share the sentiment, although the stacking of images and other various forms of labor-intensive processing undertaken by amateur astrophotographers are done in effort to reveal as much detail as possible in what's a challenging pursuit. I adore astrophotography, especially that done by the top-notch imagers (http://www.wolverinesden.org/2005/12/31/amazing-astrophotography/), and have serious plans to go that route myself as soon as I can muster the necessary funds.

That being said, though: no matter how many times I drool over imagery, it never matches the observational experience. Sure, Hubble (http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/solar_system_collection/pr2004018a/) and Cassini (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA06193) can display Saturn much better than my paltry 10" dob -- but seeing it and other bodies in real time is purely hypnotic. The images don't offer what you experience in the field, like being able to witness Earth's rotation in real time. Nor do they yield the satisfaction you receive from locating and identifying objects yourself (I remember the first time I was able to identify eight of Saturn's moons through the eyepiece, and proceeded to walk around grinning for a week straight). No image can duplicate the experience of slewing through the Milky Way.

I'll never be able to outperform the folks who can spend $100,000+ on an imaging rig. But when the time comes I'm sure going to give it my best shot anyway. ;) That, though, will never replace my love of observational astronomy.

[Dave Mitsky]

I've looked through literally hundreds of telescopes of various designs over the years. When it comes to observing the planets, nebulae, and galaxies visually, there is simply no comparison, even with very large apertures under the best of conditions, between the telescopic view and a well-done image. However, binary stars, open clusters, and globular clusters almost always look better through a telescope, in my opinion, due to the great dynamic range of the human eye.

Comparing the through-the-eyepiece experience and through-the-camera (of whatever type) images is a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Both taste good to me.

Dave Mitsky

[Kaptain K]

One class of objects almost always looks better through a scope than in an image - globular clusters. This, as Dave Mitsky said, because of the great dynamic range of the human eye. In pictures, globulars are usually over-exposed blobs with only the outlying stars showing as individual points. To the eye however, it is stars, stars and more stars to the resolution limit of your scope!

[Prowler67]

I have never looked through a telescope(yet). But I think seeing something in person is much greater thas seeing a picture. It seems to bring out stronger emotions. For example after 9/11 they were showing video and pictures of the hole in the pentagon, and seeing those brought out a sence of shock in me. Three weeks later when I saw it in person the emotion and the reality hit me. I enjoy seeing pictures of the nebulas and such, I find them beautiful, but I cannot imagine that it could compare to real time, real light veiwing. I hope to find out soon if I'm right, well at least for me.

[jt-3d]

For clusters and planets, scope view is the best. Pictures of clusters are just boring but seeing them through a scope is very nice. Planets just rock when seen in person. Sure it's nice to see what they look like up close with pictures but nothing beats seeing Saturn's rings or Venus' crescent for yourself. Even the little blue disk of Neptune is interesting to me.

However nebulae lend themselves well to colorizing. One of my favorites is NGC 3132 (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050206.html) and while I'd love to see it for myself, I don't think it would top that image of it. I do enjoy seeing nebulae in person but I prefer mine with a bit of color please.

[turbo-1]

One class of objects almost always looks better through a scope than in an image - globular clusters. This, as Dave Mitsky said, because of the great dynamic range of the human eye. In pictures, globulars are usually over-exposed blobs with only the outlying stars showing as individual points. To the eye however, it is stars, stars and more stars to the resolution limit of your scope!Yep, globulars are nice visually. Another class of objects is double stars, especially the ones with strong color differences like Alberio. Photos just don't do justice to them, but they are beautiful through an accurate high-contrast instrument like my 6" APO. Epsilon Lyra (double-double) always makes people gasp, too.

[baric]

Since I never owned a telescope and will still wait a while since you seem to have to pay a lot to get what I'm looking for, I'm wondering how much does technology improve for amateur 'spare-time' astronomers? If we'd compare what I get for $1000 today compared to for 10 years ago, and then speculate what I'd get in 10 years from now. Anyone that could give me a rough idea on the technological progress and price falls?

You know, I was thinking the same thing. If it's something I think I would enjoy for a long, long time, I could plunk down 12 grand for that 16" Meade GPS. Trust me, I definitely pondered over how to arrange my finances to make that happen!

But I decided to try something cheap first, so I bought a 3" telescope at Frye's yesterday. I wanted to see how I felt hanging around outside for several hours, just fiddling with the telescope and looking at white dots in the sky.

Despite all of the first-night frustrations, I saw the rings of Saturn with my own eyes for the first time in my life! It was definitely a very good feeling :)

Tonight, I'm going to try and get a good view with higher magnification and also get a good shot of Mars if it is far enough away from the moon.

My advice to you is to not hold out for an expensive system. Get something cheap now so that you can get started. That way, when you do spend a lot of money, you'll be doing so with a lot more expertise and confidence.

[Kaptain K]

Don't get your hopes up. Mars is very small now (and getting smaller every day). All you will see is a pale orange dot. Your best targets for now are Saturn (which you've seen), Jupiter and the Moon. Good "deep space" objects for your scope include M42 (the Orion nebula) and M45 (the Pleiades or Seven Sisters) an open cluster in Taurus. Use low power, because these objects are big.

[stu]

Don't get your hopes up. Mars is very small now (and getting smaller every day). All you will see is a pale orange dot. Your best targets for now are Saturn (which you've seen), Jupiter and the Moon. Good "deep space" objects for your scope include M42 (the Orion nebula) and M45 (the Pleiades or Seven Sisters) an open cluster in Taurus. Use low power, because these objects are big.

And don't forget Beehive Cluster (M44 I think)! It's really close to Saturn now (I think there was a conjunction of the two on Tuesday of last week).

[baric]

Don't get your hopes up. Mars is very small now (and getting smaller every day). All you will see is a pale orange dot. Your best targets for now are Saturn (which you've seen), Jupiter and the Moon. Good "deep space" objects for your scope include M42 (the Orion nebula) and M45 (the Pleiades or Seven Sisters) an open cluster in Taurus. Use low power, because these objects are big.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to find Jupiter, M42 & M45 and wait for a better time to see Mars.

And don't forget Beehive Cluster (M44 I think)! It's really close to Saturn now (I think there was a conjunction of the two on Tuesday of last week).

I had a good view when I was trying to focus on Saturn last night. My Mars finder is not perfectly aligned yet, so I originally focused in on that. Imagine my surprise when I clearly saw maybe a dozen stars in the scope that were not visible in my night sky! I made a mental note to take a better look at them this week.