A Fathers Take on Fathers Day

If you will forgive a departure from topics astronomical and more… human. We are all human after all, and hey, it’s MY blog! I tend to get a little philosophical too at times.

Yep, I made more humans too…

I lost my dad, over 30 years ago, and I still miss him… but this isn’t about my father. It’s about being a father.

When I was a child, I thought that men who grew up and didn’t get married were “Bachelors”… aka, male sluts as I understood it at the time. People who got married and didn’t have children were selfish.

Then I grew up. I got married. I had children. I learned a thing or two, and my perspective changed and became more realistic. I have many friends now who have not chosen to marry, for a variety of very good reasons. Also, married friends, who choose not to have children, also for reasons of their own that have nothing to do with personal character. I hope those friends in these categories reading this now will forgive a child’s understanding of how the world works when he knew no better.

As mentioned, and as is obvious by inspection… I did grow up. I married, and I had children. Fortunately, not because I was “tricked” into thinking this was the sole purpose of my life, but because I had a genuine desire to have a family, to be a father, and create little versions of myself and someone I loved who could head out into the world and wreak havoc and wonder in ways I might not be able to imagine.

In the annals of the history of mankind, I am fortunate beyond measure. How may people who have lived were able to choose their own spouse, and to have had three children that lived beyond infancy to grow into young adults while you watched and participated. Watching my three children turn into well-adjusted, successful adults is the single greatest and most satisfying accomplishment of my life. It is of course, for this very reason, that the greatest sorrow of my life was loosing the youngest while just reaching his prime. Stretching himself, testing himself, and unfortunately discovering a very hard and unforgiving limit imposed by Mother Nature. I can never be pleased that I lost a son, but I do take some small measure of comfort that he died doing what he loved, and I don’t have to make any awkward explanations about how he died. When I think of the chances I took at his age… it is truly a wonder most of us survive to adulthood sometimes.

Back, to the point at hand… I have had more wonderful time with my three children than most men in all the history of mankind. For this, I am rich beyond measure, and no tragedy past or future can rob me of the memories I have made with all three of my children.

All my surviving children have now (and just recently) graduated from college, a feat that in my mother’s eyes was something “our family doesn’t do” (and no, I don’t hold this against her either… it was simply the only world she knew).

When I measure myself at their age, any of my three children have accomplished more, and distinguished themselves better than I ever did at their age. With all this talk today about how great fathers are, I just wanted to say how unspeakably great it has been for me to be a father, and that my three children are and have been the single greatest source of joy and fulfillment in my life.

Richard

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A Fathers Take on Fathers Day

A Lesson in Patience

Patience and Practice Padawan…

One of the most important lessons to learn early in astrophotography is patience. Once a certain level of competence is achieved, our first impulse is to try and shoot as many objects in one night as we can. After all, clear skies are precious, and we must maximize the use of our time. After a short time of being told by all our family and friends that our work is AMAZING, we start to realize… our work really isn’t that great outside of the circles of people who are easily impressed by just about anything that looks like it’s from outer space. We realize that to take things to the next level, we need more than 16 x 1 minute sub-exposures to drive down our noise and get to the deeper fainter details. Now we shoot the same object all night, or for as long as we can before it goes behind the neighbors trees. This is a great leap forward in the quality of our work, albeit we aren’t cranking out four or five images per night anymore.

Our next great leap forward, also due to growing discipline and patience, is when we decide to spend more than one night on a target. Perhaps two… which depending on the weather might take a week or more. My first published image I spent a month on, getting a total of about 20 hours of narrowband data from my backyard a few hours at a time. Then there are those, of whom I am not worthy, who will spend many months or even a couple of years gathering data for extremely deep images or large mosaics. I am not only not there yet, I may well never be. I’m pretty sure I’ve got the patience thing down though for multi-night imaging… well, until I slipped recently, and that’s what I’m going to tell you about here.

A choice weapon for any star party!

I had the opportunity to attend the Texas Star Party this year (2017) as a vendor for Software Bisque, and instead of flying/shipping everything out, I drove. There are advantages to traveling light, but being prepared is not one of them, so I decided to drive so I could bring more of my own gear (last year I borrowed quite a bit). I brought my current favorite imaging setup, a Paramount MYT and and Esprit 150 refractor with an FLI Microline 16200 camera. A MoonLite NiteCrawler has been giving me exceptional focus with this combo and I was ready for the week with a list of images I planned to shoot with this and a shorter focal length DSLR system.

Hard to go wrong with wide field!

Most nights were good, but only three of them were good in the early morning when I wanted to shoot the Triffid Nebula (M20). I shot the region with the DSLR setup the first morning, and then gathered as much as I could on two additional mornings. Here’s where I got greedy. M20 really wasn’t high enough to shoot to gather sufficient data in only two nights. I tried getting the red subs while it’s elevation was around 30 degrees or less, and the blue when it was higher around 35 degrees (it never quite gets even to 36 degrees above the horizon here). This was foolhardy I know and I rarely will shoot even lower than 40 degrees, but I have had some good success exceptionally low to the horizon from Florida under “perfect” conditions (usually shooting out over the ocean) so why not give it a shot.

I have a core processing philosophy that if  I have to work more than a couple of hours on an image, then the data probably wasn’t good enough to begin with. I simply will not spend 40 hours doing all kinds of different deconvolutions, magic stretches, and witchcraft noise reductions. Don’t get me wrong… I WILL use these, but if I have to iterate that long then I’m just trying to turn straw into gold, and I’ll simply start over or get more/better data for the next time. One of the things I love about the ML16200 from FLI is that the read noise is very low, and it’s a grade 1 sensor. I can do amazing work with that camera with shockingly little data, even with an f/7 refractor (and that Esprit 150 produces amazing contrast and that doesn’t hurt either).

I could probably make this work…

I looked at the data when I got home, and decided not to even try processing the M20 images because the stars were so bloated. A few days later when cleaning up, I looked again and some where pretty good. I used the blink tool and tossed out some big fat star images, and decided to give it a go. I calibrated, aligned and stacked in PixInsight and got excited because the data was better than I was expecting. At least zoomed out, and after a few initial stretches it looked promising.

Bad red channel stars…

An axiom of astrophotography is that just about anything looks great if you shrink it down enough. Zoom in though and a serious problem becomes apparent. The root cause of all the reddish blotch around the stars in the image at right is that the stars in the red subs are larger than the stars in the blue and green exposures. I just tried shooting too low and the turbulence bloated the stars and finer details in the image. I’ve gotten this before, but only on a few of the brightest stars, and I will confess to fixing them with the blur brush in Photoshop. This time the problem is all over the place on perhaps a hundred stars or more in the image. A seemingly easy fix was the morphological tool in PixInsight on just the red channel. This helped a lot, but I still had many many stars with pink blocks around them. What I really need are some red subs shot higher up in elevation. Good clean data. Of course, I have good friends who will take me to task immediately… deconvolve, use the minimize, tweak

A good image, but I’m still really not happy with it. The red just seems… unbalanced (although there is a shocking amount of OIII here too).

rejection, blah blah. Yes, I know and do use these tools, but I think here it’s over using them… with 10 hours I could make an APOD worthy image I’m sure, but this just violates my own personal code of imaging. Data is king, not processing. I did this once before on a Thor’s Helmet image where the red was slightly out of focus. The resulting image was good, and even made the cover of a magazine… but deep down, I have always been unsatisfied with the image and feel the obsessive compulsive need to shoot it again (or at least the red channel) and do it over. I think I killed the red channel trying to “fix it”, and the overall tone will be different the next time.

I loved this framing on M20 and M21 and I’m not giving up yet. I’m a few degrees further south at my dark sky site, and the seeing is better in Florida to boot, so before summer is over, I may yet combine the best of the data from Texas with some new good data from Florida. I will just have to be patient with this one.

Richard

 

Posted in Astrophotography, Star Parties | Comments Off on A Lesson in Patience

Don’t be hate’n on the Moon!

It think it’s high time I came out of the closet and disclosed something to my fellow astrophotographers.

Most of my friends know me as a deep sky imager. Occasionally dabbling in a planet, or the sun, or maybe even the moon. Truth is though, the moon is my original love. It was the sight of the moon through a cheap telescope at the age of 7 or 8 and the sight of craters… that lit a fire in me that has never died. It was shooting the moon through a large reflector with my wife’s SLR on black and white film that was my introduction to astrophotography, and there is an unfinished lunar atlas I’ve started in my archives that is a project I still hope to return to one day.

How many times have you  heard someone at a club meeting, or on line, exclaim “Ahg, the moon will be up and ruin everything!”. Really? What the heck is wrong with the moon? The moon is wonderful and amazing, and it changes every night… actually it changes hourly! Yes, it’s familiar terrain, but it’s never quite the same exactly. The moon is beautiful through an eyepiece in a way that I still think no one has captured photographically. You can observe the moon through thin clouds that would ruin deep sky photography, you can observe the moon in the worst light pollution on the planet, you can even observe the moon in the daytime! It’s the ultimate astronomical target. Can’t stay up late… well, it’s an early morning target for part of the month. Can’t get up early? That’s fine for part of the month you can catch it after dinner. Oh, the summer is terrible for astrophotography because it’s too hazy? Ha, the moon doesn’t care about your haze! Suck it up and catch some reflected sunlight! Remember too, partly cloudy means partly moonshine too 😉

What about history and cultural significance? There are more songs about the moon, more cultural stories, traditions, and history associated with the moon than all 88 constellations combined!

If you’re reading this you are most likely already ruined by being exposed to astronomy too much. You’ve forgotten what it was like to be a noob. Stop showing people those fuzzy blobs in the eyepiece. No one is really impressed by how many light years away a formless shapeless barely discernible mist is…. really (sometimes when they say they see it, they are faking it too), I’m serious and I’m telling you this for your own good. The A-Number One most impressive object for just about any John-Q-Public to see through a telescope is… okay, besides Saturn… the MOON!
(I’ll give quarter to a cool Ha telescopic view of the sun… maybe… it’s too hot and it makes me sweat though… I might actually put that as a third place object).

Still doesn’t match the eyepiece view.

Low power, high power, 16 inch or 60mm telescope, the moon always delivers. You can also easily take a photo of it. With a cell phone, a pocket camera, or a DSLR. No long exposures, no deep cooling, or stacking. Just take a shot and maybe give it a tweak or two in Photoshop… and it’s beautiful. Sure, go crazy and get into lucky imaging with a video camera, or just stick to the eyepiece. I will never pass up an opportunity to look at the moon through an eyepiece. It has a dynamic range, a creamy sharpness that only the human eye can deliver when looking actually at the thing.

And… and.. and… well, there you go.

Hello, my name is Richard. I’m a deep space astrophotographer… and… I love the moon too.

 

Posted in Astrophotography, Lunar, Observing | Comments Off on Don’t be hate’n on the Moon!

What does science tell us?

So often I see the phrase “According to science…”, or “Science tells us that…”, followed by a context that leads me to believe the author really doesn’t know what science is. Science is poorly taught in most public schools, poorly understood by most policy makers, vilified by some religious groups, and most certainly misrepresented by the mainstream media with very few exceptions.

Science is not a body of knowledge, as most people understand it. It is a philosophy and method of determining what is true and what is false. I learned the scientific method in grade school (clearly, it is well taught from time to time too!), and it has changed my life. The essence is simple; what is true, can be tested. What is true, is repeatable. What is true, can be reproduced (or observed) by others following the same procedure.

Science cannot be wrong, because science is not a thing that can have an opinion, but science is not a set of facts either. Science is a methodology for figuring things out. Period. Do not confuse science with the results science can give us.

A scientist is someone who uses science to figure stuff out (whether for a living, or just as their worldview). This can range from who killed the neighbors cat, to what stars are made of, or even how to keep children from getting measles. The practice of science is not infallible, it is self correcting though, and the fact that it can be corrected does imply that science can sometimes give us false answers… but that does not negate the fact that science is simply the most reliable and objective means we have of knowing what is true or not, and accurately understanding how the universe and our world works. Given enough data, science gets to the bottom of things better than anything else we’ve come up with.

Science is the difference between objectivity and wishful thinking. People have a natural tendency to look for evidence that supports what they believe, and reject evidence that disproves what they want to be true. Fear is also a powerful bias enhancer, and fear can make you believe almost anything. This is true of every single human being on earth. A scientist is simply someone who acknowledges this about themselves, and then proceeds to conduct a life long war on these personal biases. It’s not just a good scientist, but a good human being who can in light of new information change their minds. Human psychology however sometimes makes this exceedingly difficult at times. But when this happens, don’t blame science… as a friend of mine often says, “sometimes it’s not the plane, it’s the pilot”.

Richard is a Software Engineer who has worked in the sciences for most of his career developing software for medical instrumentation, visual simulation, and finally astronomy as a developer at Software Bisque.

Posted in Editorial | Tagged | Comments Off on What does science tell us?