Ted,
You pose a great question. My answer is specific to my own situation of course.
I suspect others may be of a similar mind. Short answer - I predominantly do
astrophotography (aka AP or imaging), but also do visual when I am at a dark
site.
After after a lifetime of wanting to view the heavens with my own eyes on
decent equipment since I was a kid, about 2 years ago I finally decided I was
adult enough to spend some money on making that happen. I started with a 10"
dob, quickly grew my eyepiece collection, and learned my way around by reading
charts and star hopping. I did most of this from my back yard in Scottsdale. To
be honest, it would have taken me years if I waited to do this at dark sites.
There was a lot to learn, and I still have a lot left to learn.
At some point it became clear to me that star hopping in a light polluted area
was a real pain in the a&%. I decided this after being at a dark site, where I
found it infinitely easier (and more pleasurable) to find and view objects. The
nice part is that I had learned how to find things. The bad part is that being
encumbered by my backyard and life, it was difficult to really get as much as I
could out of it.
One cloudy night I stumbled across the website www.nightskiesnetwork.com. On
this website you could join in on live broadcasts of people using cameras as an
alternative to live viewing. This was not astrophotography in the sense that
the goal was highly polished images ready for publication. Rather, people were
simply using the camera as an augmentation to their eye. A lot more detail
became visible, and in color. The kicker for me was that many were doing this
in light polluted areas, and they were able to see objects with a camera that
simply could not be seen with the naked eye. I decided to give it a try myself
and took it all the way to astrophotography. I've broadcasted on that website
myself many times under the moniker Scottsdale North.
Nowadays I do not observe visually from my back yard. If anything I will poke
around the sky and take a handful of images just to see things. If I find an
object that is interesting, I'll spend several nights "capturing data" to make
a quality image. When I go to a dark site, I bring my imaging rig as well as a
visual rig so that while the imaging is happening I can look at other things
with my eyes. In fact, I did this at the 2016 Messier Marathon, where I
captured some excellent data on M78 and M51 while viewing 99 of the Messier
objects with the other telescope.
AP also opens the doors to other astronomical ventures. For example, I captured
a time lapse of comet Lovejoy, showing its motion across a starry background. I
did something similar for the lunar eclipse last year, while broadcasting live
on YouTube. It was fun to share with the roughly ~20 people that decided to
join in. This allowed everyone to see the progression of the eclipse. I can
also now do photometry and spectroscopy if I decide, or document variable star
behavior, etc. AP itself also helps me get my artsy fix, as once you have the
data captured getting the end result is truly an artist's endeavor.
That's my story. I still love visual observing, and have a lot to learn in that
area. Imaging keeps me "in the game" when I'm stuck at home, and gives me yet
another incentive to make trips to darker skies. Perhaps AP is a new-age means
of getting people in the game. I see it more as an alternate entry point into
the science, and I'm sure that while many start there they will eventually put
an eyepiece in to see things first hand.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Forte" <tedforte511@xxxxxxxxx>
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 9:56:39 AM
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Visual vs imaging? (Was New stuff = rain)
Do folks still go out and look at stuff, or is everyone into photography
these days?
It does seem like the hobby is tilting heavily toward imaging now, but rest
assured there are still visual observers out there.
For those of you that are Astronomical League members you might have seen
the article by Brad Young in the September Reflector magazine titled "John
Henry Owned a Dobsonian" that discusses this very issue. I've learned that
his article generated quite a large response. It seems to be the new debate
in the hobby. We've moved on from the endless discussions over GoTo vs.
star hopping and now muse over the switch from eyepiece to detector chip.
As one of those eyeball-only dinosaurs, I feel a bit like a dying breed but
that doesn't concern me a bit. In my opinion, there is no wrong way to
pursue a hobby. I'm happy to have amateur astronomers join (or return to)
our ranks no matter what their predilection.
In the past decade or so, I've noticed that the beginners that do visual
astronomy tend to lose interest more readily than the imaging crowd.
Granted, that is purely anecdotal, I have no objective evidence to bolster
that observation, but it does seem that those that take up the hobby to
pursue photography are more zealous overall. There also seems to be a
greater degree of pride involved in the digitized version of our hobby.
I've been a reader here on this forum for a few years now and have noticed a
lot more imagers sharing their results than we see visual observers posting
observing reports. Perhaps that is an artifact of increasing light
pollution and a graying of our breed.
There is a tendency, I think, to see visual observing as a quaint pastime
these days and imaging as a more sophisticated art. It is hard to argue
that visual astronomers can contribute to science to the same degree that
the techno crowd can contribute. John Henry's Dobsonian simply can't
compete.
Yet, I wonder, if the visceral experience of collecting photons on one's own
retina will ever be matched by the imager sitting at his computer screen?
Ted Forte
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
