Well I have started on a new campaign of uploading all my sketches by classifications to a website. I am using Wix and to be truthful, it is free but if you go you will see a banner at the bottom of the page and one in the upper right saying this site is made by Wix and Try it for free. They want like $10 a month to take those banners away and it won't happen. I'll probably migrate it to Wordpress in the coming days. Until then if you want to take a look at a work in progress, go to this site at https://jayleads.wixsite.com/astrosketches or here is the Link and you can see the sketches I have uploaded so far. They are basically classified as Galaxies, Planetary Nebula, Nebula, Globular Clusters, Double Stars, Lunar, Planetary, Solar etc. I have uploaded a start of my sketches, but have a long way to go and need to clean up the duplicates that have sneaked into the page. But it will give you a feeling for what I am trying to document with my sketching since 2007 or so. Here is what you'll see when you go there and under the Jay in Utah Astro Sketches are the classification areas that hold the sketches.
Sketching as an art form has been around for hundreds of years, if not thousands. In that bastion of knowledge, Wikipedia we find the following definition that I actually like:
"Sketching is a rapidly executed freehand drawing that is not usually intended as a finished work. A sketch may serve a number of purposes: it might record something that the artist sees (or observer sees), it might record or develop an idea for later use or it might be used as a quick way of graphically demonstrating an image, idea or principle."
In astronomical sketching I have seen a variety of these methods and ways and have used several mediums myself. Many of the sketches I post here on my blog are field sketches, right off observing from the eyepiece. They are raw for the most part, very raw and capture what I am seeing at that moment. At one point my goal was to sketch the complete Herschel 2500 so when I got one of these faint objects, I sketched it quickly, as thoroughly as I could and the result is that often stars are not rounded, some detail is left off on those fainter Herschel. On the other hand, when I come across something very interesting to me I take my time, I sketch the stars as circles, and I add as much detail to the object(s) will reveal and I can discover using my observing techniques and different magnification of eyepieces.
Some of these sketches I am extremely happy with, proud of and display them knowing I nailed how they viewed to me. Since I use the Mellish method, of pastel chalk on black paper, applied with brushes and a couple of other tools, I find that my approach often delivers what I am trying to do. If I am a hurry, or if I am having a frustrating night, something I am sure most observers can relate with, my sketching suffers. So if I post what I call a raw sketch, it is that, raw and sometimes once home, I will redo the sketch with the details I had written in white ink, star placements and the object with details. Other times as the business of life presses on me, I leave the sketch as is and post that.
Another option I have done and am currently redoing is using GIMP to process my sketches and add detail to the raw sketch that I have made. I can round my stars there, add details that I had recorded or rapidly put down and come up with an end product or finished work that I really like. One of the biggest frustrations I have is how to photograph my sketches of pastel chalk on black paper. I have figured that out sometimes, and then forgotten that as a bad season of weather impacts my observing.
Yet another item that I fight with is the notion that sketching as an art form and artists who are more concerned with an end product that impresses than one that reflects what a real observer will see at the eyepiece. What I get sometimes is that REALLY what you or another sketcher has seen in the eyepiece? I have struggled with that from time to time and have come to the conclusion that art is art, and needs to be labeled as art and a sketch or art that reflects the eyepiece view in reality needs to be just that. Here is an example of what I am talking about.
The image above is from Wikipedia on NGC 1535 LINK and the credit is:
Credit: Adam Block/Mount Lemmon SkyCenter/University of Arizona
This is an actual image captured by Adam Block.
Here is my sketch of NGC 1535 sketched several years ago from Mike Clements 72" reflector. However, I would also state this is art as it is made from notes and an outline sketch that I made. I relied on the above image and others to help me bring out the details. So to me this is simply an art reflection and why until now, I have never shared it.
In the sketch/art work I did capture the three distinct 3 dark green patters I saw from the core and a light green patch across from the central star. Overall, I like this sketch/art work though I would have been softer on the splotches. Yet for me, done totally in GIMP, this is art.
Now I am going to post some raw sketches and post GIMP digitally processed versions of these sketches. You can determine if you like the raw sketch or the digitally processed GIMP version. In the end though, I believe the thing that is the most important, is that the outcome reflects what someone using your scope would most likely see (it will differ since my eyes and experience are my eyes and experience and someone else may have more or less, be older or young, observes traditionally from a backyard in suburbia or from a dark site like I do. All factors and lets not forget sky conditions and local conditions that impact the view) for themselves.
Sirius A & B
The top is the raw sketch that I made of Sirius A and Sirius B and the bottom is the same sketched, enhanced in GIMP to reflect Sirius A's brilliance and Sirius B in relation to A and without spikes from a curved spider. For me I feel the GIMP processed sketch on the bottom reflects truly what I saw at the eyepiece, though the top one is fine also.
NGC 5139 Omega Centuri
This top one is the processed sketch in GIMP. I added a brighter core, added brighter stars and added structure to the glob. This is an uneven edge, stars evident and mottling hinting of more stars. This is close to what I saw but ask is it artistic after looking at the next three?
This is my original sketch of NGC 5139 Omega Centauri. You can see the unven edges, the brighter inner core and the mottling hinting of other stars. This was done in pastel chalk, white pencil and white gel ink. This is the version that for me is the best, though the top one comes very, very close in GIMP, with the core perhaps too bright now that I found the original.
My first process in GIMP with not the fading and uneven edges that I saw, more of a blob. Looks like a ball with points of light on it, not as good as the top sketch and a little less like what I saw in the eyepiece.
The original raw sketch after I had taken an image of it and killed it. I lost the detail, the large inner core, the uneven edges and mottling that hints of stars. For me the top image where I took the sketch, added the detail based on notes and observation in my 17.5" f/4.4 dob with the 22mm T4 and 26mm T5 Nagler is my sketch of this object. Having said that, the one in my sketch pad is more like the top one and is the model I used for it, and that is my favorite. I have to figure out a way to include them. So art nor not, the top image here is the one that is the winner for me and I guess that is what matters, since it is my sketch and that is my final product!
Note: I added sketch two, the original version once I located the sketch on file. I have to remember how to capture my actual sketches that way.
Messier 101 Spiral Galaxy in Ursa Major
The sketch above is meant to be my final product for Messier 101 in my 17.5" f/4.4. I processed it in GIMP and the stars are indeed more popping, but I lost the background structure or oval of the galaxy and the arms are sticking out with their HII regions way to bright.
Here is the original and if ONLY I could have captured it with the whiteness of the stars and lighter gray of the HII regions popping with the stars, this by far is a better sketch and end product in my opinion. The only thing I needed was to pop those stars and the pastel chalk and that is me figuring out my DSLR camera.
NGC 5068 Spiral Galaxy in Virgo
This is my original raw sketch of NGC 5068 that I captured and was rather pleased with the capture. The galaxy and pastel chalk are a little too blue here, but you can see the structure and detail of the original sketch. The original on my pad was wonderful and I love my capture of the spiral structure on the right and left side. To me this is a final product.
Same sketch above as the first but two items have happen. I failed to take the image with my Canon DSLR correctly and some of the pastel chalk has faded off. The result is I do not like this capture or display. The original is far, far better.
Here is the digital rendition and again for me, the original on top is the best final product for me. I like my star field here but it is just missing the details of the pastel chalk that the top one gave from a 45 minute sketching and observing session. You can decide but for me, the first one though a sketch, resulted in a final product and is artistic also.
NGC 5170 Edge on Galaxy in Virgo
Above is my original sketch of NGC 5170 and I LOVE this sketch. I love the effort I put into it and the forcing of an observer to the sketch to use averted vision if you want to see it elongated. I like my star field and I love the fact that I can look at that sketch and remember observing it. I love the dark lane near the core, and the bright inner core region. My 17.5" was truly strutting it's stuff on this object with great conditions and an experience observer!
Same object, actually same sketch as you can see the wire binding on the right side but here I have darkened the background, laid in a long slender galaxy, with a bright inner core. Hint of a dark lane is there but the length you can see, you don't need averted vision like in the top sketch. I added some stars, not many but a few to the field (I am beginning to think on star fields to only put in the bright stars and leave the actual stars and the one I place for affect out). I much prefer the top sketch and am great with it as a final product.
NGC 5426 & NGC 5427
The top is the original sketch and it is mis-shapen to me, but that I how I wrote it down in my notes. NGC 5426 the bottom galaxy in this sketch has mottling which I saw and overall I had to admit I am not bias to either version of this sketch.
The GIMP version of the sketch shrunken down a little and brighter. Perhaps closer to the shapes I saw in the eyepiece. Again, no bias either way.
Rosette Nebula Caldwell 49 (Yes, I know most do not like that term)
Here is an example of a sketch I did that I never processed, I nailed the taking of its image and it has never been processes because I don't think I can improve on it. It took many hours and two back to back nights of observing to nail this. Others may disagree but for me, I just love how it came out. Artistic, probably, what I saw, yes when I combine the wide field views together.
Messier 16 The Eagle Nebula
Done several summers ago, I got the Pillars of Creation and the nebula nicely. Never processed as the time and effort I felt I had a final product and I do.
B33 The Horsehead Nebula
Stephen Waldee did a through and complete measurement of the sketch and the position of the Horsehead and its shape and found that I was right on with this sketch. As such there was no need to repeat it or redo it so it has stood.
NGC 2362 Tau Cluster
So here is NGC 2362 the Tau Cluster in Canis Major and my favorite open cluster. I took my sketch, took its picture, loaded it up on my computer in my folder I keep for that observing session, brought it up in GIMP and added the stars and brightness to them and color tint as I see it. To me this is what I see on NGC 2362 but my question is, is it digital art or is it a sketch? Call it what you will, it is an end product for me and shows what I see.
So, what is my point in all of this? Over the last five years in the sketching world I have seen sketching evolve to the point that I see a lot of great sketchers and great digital sketchers and the product they make, is not only photographic, but amazing. Some of have asked me if I think that is what they are really seeing? The question seems to be is what is being done in the name of sketching real, or is it someone just using art or digital art to impress others? I laugh when I hear that. The greater question is does it really matter? Realistic sketching or art or just simply space art, does it matter? Enjoy what the sketcher or artist is bringing. In truth what most imagers product is not what the image probably really looks like either. It is the colors we assign to the parts of the object.
The most important item for me moving forward is to continue to create the image that I am seeing in my eyepiece in the scope I am using and share that. To me that is key to whether a sketch or final work of art passes the muster. I never question an observer on what they see, I am not there, in their seeing conditions with their instrument. In the end it doesn't matter. What matters is that I am enjoying sketching as a way to observe and sharpen my observing skills and I am happy with whatever end product I product. Now to go and play with my Canon Rebel DSLR to figure out how to take photos of my sketches so they are like the ones I posted today.
Keep on sketching, keep on observing, the weather will pass, I hope.
In August we will have the wonderful opportunity in the United States to observe an eclipse of the Sun. Many are anticipating this event and in truth, it will come up fast and past equally as fast. Last May we got to experience the transit of Mercury last May 9th, 2016. Transits of Mercury occur in either May or in November. The next transit of Mercury that we will see is on November 11th, 2019 and for us in the Western U.S. that transit will already be occurring when it comes into view of our solar telescopes. The next May transit of Mercury will occur on May 7th, 2049 which for me, will make me 84. I may or most likely will not be around for that (though I hope I am). Here is a sketch from that transit to enjoy. It was made with my Lunt Solar Scope and a warning to NEVER look at the Sun without the proper protection or equipment, NEVER!
This was done in my Lunt LS35s with a 20mm Pentax XW.
The two above are done in the same solar scope, Lunt LS35s with a 10mm Pentax XW. The top one is the sketch the bottom is the digital process in GIMP. You can decide which you prefer and that will be the basis for my next post.
I believe I have written on this before, and the sketch below is from a year ago, but I never posted it. It shows the view in my 17.5" dob with the curved spider vanes and how easily the pup is seen in that scope. In both my 14" and my 10" which have 4 vane spiders, I have seen the pup or Sirius B before, but the diffraction spike in some ways helped, and in other ways subtracted from the view. I will say that for me, the curved spider, as long as it is attached correctly and doesn't hinder collimation or holding collimation, makes a difference in the view on this object, and on other objects. For me it is not that the diffraction spike is gone, that light is still in the field of view, it is simply spread out and that to me is the difference. A bright star next to a deep sky object like a galaxy does the same thing. It allows the main object, the galaxy to be viewed without the diffraction spikes.
Now having said that, I have used my diffraction spikes on my other telescope to guide me in to faint objects and in this case, to guide me into seeing where the pup is. So to curve or not to curve should not be based on the view, it is a consideration but it is based on the fact on whether the scope can maintain collimation with the vane in the upper ring or structure. In my case in my 17.5" I needed to a make my own adjustments to how the spider connects to the ring to secure the spider and stop collimation shift. Not a problem, that is why I have the scope I do, I like to tinker and play and it makes the scope more mine than not. If you don't like to tinker, then get a scope you don't have to mess with. So, here is how Sirius looks like from my 14" and 10" scopes.
The above is Sirius A and B (the Pup) from a 14" with 4 vane spider.
Above is Sirius A & B in my 4" refractor, an Explore Scientific AR102.
The view of Sirius A & B in my 17.5" dob with curved spiders.
Okay, just kidding but for a second, I bet a few of you were running outside to curse me when you looked up and saw Betelgeuse still in its normal state and position in Orion. Still a dream of mine to be living when the light from that explosion reaches us 654 light years later!
So if I haven't mentioned this, I suffer from Celiac Disease, and am extremely sensitive. Last Friday at work we go out once a quarter for "birthday lunch" and I went this time. We went to that Gluten Free bastion Sizzler. I figured I could get away with a salad, but nope, there was cross contamination in the salad bar somewhere and I got gluten. Well, I will spare you the immediate after affects of when I get gluten, but I will share that for the next five days it is one of intestinal upset, stomach upset, joint aches, heavy fatigue and foggy thinking, more foggy than normal. So last night I could not sleep so I decided to have some fun and using GIMP made some fun images I think.
As the title suggests I focused on Betelgeuse after doing a practice capture of SN1987A at the moment that the progenitor star Sanduleak −69° 202 collapses, rebounding and the shock wave broke out of the main star. Sanduleak −69° 202, was a giant blue supergiant, about 20 solar masses in size and it was thought at that time, that blue super giants never went supernova. Sanduleak −69° 202 disproved that theory though it did show that blue super giants are natural progenitors of supernova, their dense inward material make them not as luminous as their red supergiant cousins which are far more luminous and thus more are seen. Here is my sketch digitally created of the death throes of Sanduleak −69° 202, and then a poor rendition of the SNR that has remained. Got to fix those stars . . . If you want to read more here are some links to SN1987A (just celebrated 30 years since the light first reached us on February 23/24 1987). Wikipedia LINK Earth/Sky SN1987A LINK (has a few ads to subscribe); Hubble Heritage LINK.
Next I sketched digitally my view of Betelgeuse at the moment it goes supernova. Betelgeuse is as most red super giants do, shedding mass at an extremely high rate as it nears the end of its life. It truly is one of the most luminous and largest stars in the night sky. It is estimated to be between 10 to 20 solar masses. This image which I "borrowed" from Wikipedia shows how big and massive Betelgeuse is in comparison to our solar system. Also, note, it is not a round star, but it is boiling as it is ejecting its mass as it enters the final stage of its evolution.
Above is a more distant view of Betelgeuse going supernova.
Above is a closer look of Betelgeuse going supernova and ejecting a gamma ray burst or I can assume this is the breakout from the main star as the shock wave after collapsing, is cocked, and then shot out breakout out of the star and the surrounding material.
There you have it. Just some fun on my part and fun messing around with the tool.
I managed to get out for several hours in the West Desert of Utah. Fun driving up to the site! Anyway, had some great views and did some sketching. Of course pics out to the site (these were taken a couple days before but give a sense of the conditions). Dry, a little rutty but still an easy drive.
A little muddy here, not bad, nothing the Outback can't handle!
1. NGC 2207 & IC 2163 merging Galaxies in Canis Major. Feb. 25th, 2017, 07:30pm MST; Antoniadi II, FR006; 17.5" Dob Star Catcher; 22mm T4 Nagler, 10mm & 5mm Pentax XW; Paracorr Type II.
The top image is using the 5mm Pentax XW at around 450x (Paracorr II). Second image is with the 10mm Pentax XW and 22mm Nagler. Reversed image from normal of course since I am using a dob. IC 2163 is the tine bright extension on the right and NGC 2207 is the large spiral galaxy on the left. There was a hint of structure, mottling on the left side of NGC 2207 which I have interpreted as the arms, which seem to be right in their placement. These two galaxies are actually doing a fly by each other with IC 2163 moving clockwise around the larger spiral NGC 2207. In about a billion years they will merge and form an elliptical galaxy. Until then as the rotate around and through each other, dust will be stirred up and there will e lots of star and planetary formation in these galaxies. They are not so well known, but easily seen. I have sketched them before in my 10" and 14" dobs. Well worth the time.
2. NGC 2283 a spiral galaxy in Canis Major. Feb. 25th 2017; 08:20pm MST; Antoniadi II, clear, cold, 30 degrees F; FR006; This is a small, dim, even surface brightness galaxy that is the smudge on the sketch. Took longer to sketch in the field stars than sketch the galaxy!
3. NGC 2327 a Reflection Nebula in Canis Major. Feb 25th, 2017, 09:00 MST; Antoniadi II, clear, cold 28 degrees F; FR006 Juniper Grove; 17.5" dob, Star Catcher; 22mm T4 Nagler, 10mm Pentax XW; DGM NB and OIII Filter (not needed as it is a reflection nebula and filters did not help) and Paracorr Type II.
This is a wonderful object to observe and one often overlooked. My sketch should be brighter but there is lots going on here. That U shape band of stars in the middle left leads to a wonderful area of nebulosity that has a few filaments and uneven edges. Second area of brighter nebulosity on the middle right after a dark area or dark nebula area with stars around it. Rich star field. Held my observing interest for some time..
4. NGC 2211 (brighter one upper left with small bright core) and NGC 2212 (smaller in the middle below NGC 2211), merging galaxies in Canis Major. Feb 25, 2017, FR006 Juniper Grove; Antoniadi II, clear, cold; 10:05pm MST; 17.5" dob Star Catcher; 22mm T4 Nagler & 10mm Pentax XW, Paracorr Type II.
NGC 2211 is basically faint, small, elonganted NE to SW and has a small bright core. NGC 2212 is roundish, very faint and no structure evident. Images of NGC 2212 will show that the galaxy has been distributed by NGC 2211 as they begin the gravitational dance of merging to become an elliptical galaxy.
5. NGC 2318 Open Cluster in Canis Major. Feb 25th, 2017; FR006 Juniper Grove; 10:30pm MST;Antoniadi II, clear, cold, 25 degrees F; 17.5" dob Star Catcher; 22mm T4 Nagler, Paracorr Type II.
In truth in the RNCG this is listed as not being an open cluster or an object, basically just a series of Milky Way based Stars Herschel used as he scanned, using the bright star in the middle as a guide star. Either way, this is what is there, and there doesn't appear to be an Open Cluster structure to this so I stay it is just a bunch of stars.
6. NGC 2362 Tau Open Cluster in Canis Major. Feb 25th, 2017; FR006 Juniper Grove; 11:00pm MST; Antoniadi II, clear, cold, 25 degrees F; 17.5" dob, Star Catcher; 22mm T4 Nagler and 7mm Pentax XW; Paracorr Type II.
There is not doubt that this IS an open cluster of stars. The star Tau Canis Majoris dominates the central field with its blue hue and size. I felt I captured the region and NGC 2362 quite well here and really like the sketch. These are stars that formed together from a nebulous cloud and will over time, disperse away from each other, with the larger stars going supernova. The other bright star here is UW Canis Majoris a rare Blue Supergiant star 2000 light years from us and thought to be a member of the Tau Canis Majoris Open Cluster, thus why I included it.