Low surface brightness galaxies

Yesterday night I compared several galaxies, all with integrated magnitudes indicating that they are relatively bright, but wiht a low surface brightness. Here is my rating of their difficulty.

1(Most difficult): IC342 in Camelopardalis. I saw this galaxy for the first time yesterday night. Its core is probably bright enough to be seen in a smaller scope, but since it is located in a pretty rich star field, it isn't easy to spot. However, the halo was faintly visible behind the star field.
2: NGC147 (Cassiopeia). A bit easier than IC342, perhaps because it is located in a void in the star field.
3: NGC4236 (Draco). Considerably easier than the previous ones. A very large ghostly cigar shape.
4: NGC185 (Cassiopeia). Not really difficult with the 12.5-inch.
5: NGC891 (Andromeda) Seen edge-on it contrasts pretty well with the background. This galaxy, like all the others, however, requires a dark clear sky. Scattered light will extinguish this nebula almost regardless of aperture.
6: M74 (Pisces)
7: M101 (Ursa Major)
8: M33 (Triangulum)

In the last two galaxies, the spiral pattern is visible in my scope. Also several emission nebulae in their spiral arms can be seen under the best conditions.

Inge S

I just found NGC 147 last night with my 6-inch dob, after more failed attempts than I care to mention. I've been trying for the pair 185/147 since a Sky & Telescope article a couple of years ago or so. I've found neighboring 185 quite a few times, and never found it to be especially difficult, but 147, which looks similar "on paper" and is in the same low power field of view, has escaped me.

There seems to be some variation in how difficult these two galaxies are for observers; many folks including Walter Scott Houston rate them about the same, but 147 has been far more difficult for me. This last session, it was just perceptible to me, but 185 was, once again, not so hard. It seemed considerably more elongated than 185, but it took a lot of perceptual work to determine a shape.