[Aavso-photometry] Comparing charts to field photometry

[Arne Henden]

I think the problem is that you are using the field photometry from
VSP, but the charts from the old on-line charts and *not* VSP.
We uploaded improved photometry for over half of the AAVSO
comparison stars last Fall, and those improved measures changed
the chart labels.  If you plot your chart with VSP, and use the photometry
table through VSP, they will agree, but both will disagree with earlier
charts.  You should use the new charts, not the old ones.
Arne
(at MJUO, NZ)

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:00 AM, George Silvis <George at gasilvis.net> wrote:
>
>  I'm just getting started with CCDV photometry. I'm finding many
>  discrepancies between charts and field photometry table star labels.
>  Or I'm doing it wrong!
>
>  For example, take V Gem
>    chart 0717+13(e),  Field Photometry 080301
>  - There are 19 labeled stars on the chart, 18 in the photometry
>  ("94") is missing
>  - 7 differences in the labels
>                       photometry vs chart label
>  000-BBM-965      119            120
>  000-BBN-001      115             116
>  000-BBM-960      102             100
>  000-BBM-985     113              112
>  000-BBM-994     130              132
>  000-BBN-007     136             138
>  000-BBM-993     132             134
>
>  What is the procedure? To whom would this be reported?
>
>  When documenting an observation, which labelling should be used, or
>  should I report the AUID?
>
>  Thanks
>  George
>  SGEO
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
>  Aavso-photometry mailing list
>  Aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
>  http://www.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-photometry
>