5
Hit 10,000 cumulative hours looking through my telescope last night and it got me thinking...
Some people say you need that many hours to really see anything meaningful, but I feel like I spotted more cool stuff in my first 100 hours than in the last 9,900. Is it about the quantity of looking or the quality of what you're looking at?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
grant_allen8515d agoMost Upvoted
Spent my first 100 hours of astrophotography trying to take a picture of the moon that didn't look like a potato, so I feel your pain on quality over quantity lol.
7
jordanc3210d ago
Hold up, friend. Let's also be real about the potato comment. The moon is a big bright rock in the sky, not exactly a deep space nebula. Getting a clear shot of it is mostly about nailing the focus and using the right settings, which is way easier than tracking a galaxy. I'd argue those 100 hours were probably more about figuring out your gear than the moon being hard to shoot. @hunt.quinn might be right that practice counts, but calling that "pain" is a bit dramatic. It's the moon, not a black hole.
1