"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> In the ongoing thread which addresses the observation of M1 under light
> polluted skies, one poster points out that it is difficult visually but
> easy photographically.
> I don't consider the capturing of an object with a camera (which CHEATS the
> eye) as a valid observation of said object.
I agree too, but I guess opinions differ on this subject. I suspect many of
the great astrophotographers who hang around alt.binaries.pictures.astro may
For me, there's no substitute for "eyeing" the object directly. No matter how
small the apperture, I consider a direct view of a DSO to be data acquired
directly through the five senses, thus invaluable.
I had seen detailed pics of M1 for example, at least 25 years ago, before I
had any equipment. Meant little to me, until I saw M1 with my own eyes.
A Hubble pic may be impressive, but for me it is nowhere as impressive as the
view through moderate to serious equipment.
Also, although extended objects such as DSOs typically look better through
astrophotography, I don't think this applies to single stars. Single stars
look the best directly. Even the best photos tend to saturate the images of
stars, seriously altering their appearance and cluttering the pic. I think no
photo can capture the divine beauty of single stars as well as the eye does,
in any equipment, including the unaided eye.
Of course, I am not a professional, so I am not extracting any valuable data
from high quality pics, thus my choice.
> Martin R. Howell
> Worldwide Amateur Astronomers
Ioannis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/