|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
A very peculiar galaxy! Nice image Rick, huge focal length!
__________________
Mike . mikesalway.com.au - Astronomy and Photography by Mike Salway . IceInSpace - The Australian Amateur Astronomy Community . My Bio | My Jupiter 2007 Gallery | My Image Gallery |
|
||||
|
Quote:
So while you can see this galaxy visually and get some hints of mottling and lack of a core that's about it. Even a 6" will show the galaxy as a smudge of light. A 10" will show the mottling. No scope will show much more. Nor will you ever see the color as the intensity is way to low to activate the color "film" in your eye. Only the black and white rods will see this dim of light, not the cones that see in color. Going to a bigger scope doesn't help much. There's a rule of optics that works against you here. You'd think it gets brighter as power mirror size goes up but power has to go up in the same ratio. If it doesn't the excess light misses the pupil of your eye so is never seen. Cameras My CCD doesn't have any of these limitations so can easily image far more than I can see. I remember viewing Centaurus A that Iceman just posted using a 6" f/4, a 10" f/5 and a 12.5" f/6 all with a 5 mm exit pupil that did fit the eye. Even there oddly the angular size of the galaxy as seen by the eye barely changed. It looked just as big in the 6" as the 12.5" Though the 12.5" was running over twice the power so it should have looked twice as big in angular size. That's even a worse result than I'd have expected and I still can't explain it. The dust lane was more easily seen in the larger scopes however so that made sense. To see galaxies as more than a smudge with a brighter center, even the major ones, you have to really learn how to train your eye and brain to work together to dig out faint detail from all the noise you eye sends the brain. You learn tricks such as gently moving the field of view and using averted vision while doing so. You learn which eye is best and where in its field of vision it sees faint stuff best. It's quite a learning process. The more you try the sooner you catch on. You also need very dark skies. Two nights may at first appear the same but one time you'll see things you don' the other. Not sure if its my eye or a subtle difference in the sky when that happens. Now that I'm entering my 7th decade of this hobby I don't see what I used to but still can easily out see our less experienced younger members with these eyes thanks to decades of learning what works and doesn't -- for me. So while you can see dust lanes and star clouds (NGC 204 for instance) in the Andromeda Galaxy and start to see the spiral arms in the Whirlpool galaxy in an 8 or 10 inch scope, no scope will begin to show them as seen in photographs taken with much smaller telescopes. The photos are very misleading about what you will see visually. On a side note, most times you see nice pretty pictures like this on the box the scope comes in run far away. This is usually just a marketing ploy to sell a rather poor telescope for far more money than it is worth. There can be exception but even those won't show you anything remotely close as far as nebula and galaxies go. The moon is a different story. It looks just like the photos. In fact, photographing the detail you see visually is quite a challenge. Planets like Jupiter and Saturn will look good as well, especially Saturn, but still rarely as good as the photo on the box, and certainly far smaller with less color and contrast than the photo on the box. Rick |
|
||||
|
Rick,
A very nice shot. It looks like a piece of jewelry. Your discussion on imaging and seeing is also very interesting. I've only tried looking at galaxies a few times when I've been at a dark site. It is exciting, but mostly an intellectual exercise as you said. And I am of the opinion that the images we take don't represent what the objects "look" like because they can't really be seen. --Andy
__________________
Observatorio de la Ballona |
|
|||
|
I managed to see NGC 2976 a few days ago with the dob. It was a small, very faint fuzzy blob but yet I was still delighted.
To see your image just adds to my sense of wonderment. Thanks for sharing
__________________
Beer, the cause of and solution to, all lifes problems |
|
|||
|
A Superb image of this small and distant galaxy. A pearl of beauty and you captured it with fine details, Oustanding processing and capturing you did great also with excellent info. Thanks Rick and Clear Skies.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|