Hey all,

OK, this is the first time, in using Usenet for 12 years, I've ever
crossposted, but this seemed like a subject to ask both groups. Right about
now, all the people in r.p.e.35mm are going "Aw, crap, another film vs.
digital thread?" - just wait, everyone, my goal isn't a religious war, and
this isn't simply retreading old ground. Meanwhile, in sci.astro groups,
they're saying, "There's even a question?" - well, that's kind of my whole
point, actually. But, first, some background.

I shoot 35mm SLRs, and have since I was a kid. However, I'll be the first
to admit I never got too deep into the aspects of photography, just using my
camera to shoot family snapshots. I've just begun to learn about the finer
points of film photography, the capabilities of different films, etc. At
the same time, I'm also a newcomer to amateur astronomy, and to
astrophotography, and am a bit confused about

Oceanside Photo & Telescope has a pretty good FAQ on CCD imaging in
astrophotography, which can be found at
http://www.optcorp.com/cart/ProductD...ProductID=3048 - it's a bit
long, but a worthwhile read for those not familiar with the current process
used. Essentially, though, the argument is that a CCD, especially one
cooled significantly below ambient temperature (to cut down on noise), is
more light-sensitive, doesn't suffer from reciprocity failure, and there's
more ability for image enhancement of the digital image, not to mention the
whole instant gratification aspect.

OK, so that's the basic argument as to the superiority of digital over film
in astrophotography, and it makes sense. However, is CCD imaging really
that much better? For example, the CCD has to be cooled to cut down on
noise, an issue you don't see with film. Also, the majority of CCDs in use
are smaller than 35mm film format - wouldn't that generally mean poorer
maximum resolution? I mean, some of the better 35mm films give incredible
resolutions, and, combined with 40 megapixel film scanners, you get better
resolution than digital. Also, is reciprocity failure as pronounced on
newer films as it used to be - IIRC, doesn't the new formula for Elite
Chrome 100 go a long way towards solving this? Are there others? And,
wouldn't lower ISO film, while requiring longer exposures, give far better
color saturation as well?

Lastly, what areas of astrophotography is film still advantageous at? Right
now, I'm primarily sticking with wide field, unguided shots (I'll be posting
some new pics once I can borrow my friend's film scanner in a couple days),
doing long-exposure star trails or short exposure shots of constellations,
etc. As I continue to invest, this'd be a major issue, as the types of
equipment start diverging dramatically after a while.

Thanks in advance for any advice you might have. Oh, and, kids, let's try
to keep the flames to a minimum, please, 'kay?

--Jason