Film M31 for the Cynical

"Robert Geake" wrote in message
...
Chaps!

This image is unaltered in anyway aside from scanning and cropping. NO
filters or mathematical algowhatsnames applied.... Mount(first generation
eq6) was aligned via polar scope then guide star-polaris iterations upto
250X. Site is about 10 feet away from the Sheppy Faversham creek(Harty
Ferry View for those in the know).

http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/M31-30MX-F4-200mm.jpg

Nice shot. I'm sure that this must be more challenging than digital imaging.
Thanks for sharing.

Regards


Chris

wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks Robert,

Now, that we're friends again, I am happy to complement you on your
excellent image of M31.

When I re-started my astronomical activities about 3 years ago, (after
a few
years doing other things) I bought an Olympus OM1 with the intention of

using it to do my imaging. I used film cameras for many years in the
70's
and 80's for astronomical use, althought I never had a setup in those
days
that would allow me to do long-exposure DSO stuff at the telescope.
(ask
Pete Lawrence, it was he that convinced me to go digital instead).
After our
little 'spat' I'm quite keen to have a go with the the old OM1 and see
how
it turns out. Focussing with a film camera is an issue for me, and just

wondered how you manage it so well. I'll start with using bright stars
directly through the viewfinder, but I've seen all sorts of horrendous
knife-edge techniques etc. Also what colour film would you recommend I
should start with?

Cheers
Ian.

Robert Geake wrote:
If you'd said that sort of stuff to my face I'd have knocked your
block
off
;-)

Tried Ian, Tried....

Now, note the little smiley face with that last remark - that's the
kind
of
banter I've come to like on this newsgroup - not the abusive stuff, so
please let's try to avoid that sort of thing in the future. (Oh.. and
a
small apology would be appreciated - to Ian Sharp, rather than Ian
Sharpe
;-))

Ok, Sorry Mr Sharpe....


OM1, Nice camera, my brother has one of those!!! As for focusing, agreed it
is substantially harder to do than with a digital slr because you have to
wait for the results...

I use the same lens for all DSO work and it has many marking on it in a
coded manor, the focus setting i use depends on ambient temperature and
object..Without going into silly details i dont use a hartman, i use trial
an error!

Set focus to infinity.
Take the intended exposure and settings twice.
Record the settings somehow.
Use the rest of the film to take picutres of dogs and cats and children and
clouds and other pretty stuff..
Once returned from the lab you can see if you are in or out of focus, if you
where in magic, if you where out make some adjustments and try again. I have
found with the lens i use that infinity is always good enough to do DSO and
i only use 25exp films(less picutre of pretty things to take..)

The M31 image was the third round!!! It actually took about 2 week in total
with clouds and such!

As to film, i personally dont think it matters, i go for Kodak gold 400,
what i do think matters is using the same film every time you shoot astro.
Given the amount of variables that go into taking an astro picture reducing
them by using the same film is each time has got to be a good thing... Ah
yes, telephoto's are a big no no in my experience, i have a 200-300 and it
is really bad for astro work...

Sorry if im teaching you to suck eggs

R

"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:29:05 +0100, "Robert Geake"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
So-so even for film. You should have tweaked it (as Pete has shown), at
least a bit.

Andrea T.


Again, subject to preference, i like to take a picutre first time and if
its
not upto standard take another learning from the experiences of the
first!
We all spend enough time in front of computers already dont we???

Strange comment but if that's your opinion ;-)

Computers and digital processing techniques are simply tools - a means
to an end. There's nothing false about the methodology either.

Compare a single image of a planet with a the result of a stacked
process of hundreds of frames - which is the more accurate rendition
of the planet would you say?

Your M31 was a nice image but a little lack-lustre (for my tastes of
course). There's information in the scan that hints at additional
detail - why hide it? The detail is real. A bit of subtle tweaking
(similar to what you would do in a dark room if printing your own
photos) can change an ok image into something that gives the viewer a
real kick. Isn't this what art is all about - generating an emotional
response in the receiver?

Of course, you could be trying to be scientific with your image in
which case , personally, I think you've lost ;-)

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

Basicly, i spend 8 hours each day programming(when not posting of course),
then maybe 2 or 3 of an evening doing some more programming privately... I
really cant be done with spending anymore time sitting at a computer. If i
take a picture and it does not have quite enough detail, next time i will
leave the shutter open for much longer and increase Fstop. If my film start
to reach reciprocity failure(scuse speeling) i'll try another film!

Agricultural i think is the term

Im sure when i get round to(or some one else gets round to) buying me a nice
350D i will most likely start to do as you dslr guys do but for the time
being i really would rather use film and stay away from the PC

R

Thanks for the info Robert.
Cheers
Ian.