35mm film?

Hi All,

Just curious what people use for 35mm film (for those that still use a
manual camera and not CCD)? Do you use different films for different
purposes (i.e. maybe one film for the moon and one for deep sky)?

Thanks,

Glenn

"Glenn Mulno" wrote in message
...
Just curious what people use for 35mm film (for those that still use a
manual camera and not CCD)? Do you use different films for different
purposes (i.e. maybe one film for the moon and one for deep sky)?

I don't have an answer, but I do have a follow on question: Is it possible
to do wide field film photography in the range of magnitude 4.5 to 5.5
skies?

Thanks,
Stephen Paul

One trick to suppress sky glow is to use a slower f/stop. Ideally, you wan
to the stars to show up but have the skyglow be to dim to register. This
works because film response to light is not linear.

Another trick is to digitize the film frame with a scanner. At that point
one may employ all the digital techniques commonly used to enhanced CCD
images. For example, one might subtract the background sky glow, increase
contrast or remove an airplane trail.

Del Johnson



"Stephen Paul" wrote in message
...

I don't have an answer, but I do have a follow on question: Is it possible
to do wide field film photography in the range of magnitude 4.5 to 5.5
skies?

Thanks,
Stephen Paul

In article ,
Stephen Paul wrote:
"Glenn Mulno" wrote in message
...
Just curious what people use for 35mm film (for those that still use a
manual camera and not CCD)? Do you use different films for different
purposes (i.e. maybe one film for the moon and one for deep sky)?

Glenn,

Absolutely. There are currently no decent print films for capturing
the ~650nm emissions. Kodak and Fuji have *improved* their print films
and in the process ruined them for this purpose. The last truely great
Astro print film was *old* Kodak Supra 400. This has, sadly, been changed
and the new version isn't very good. But I have some 300 rolls of the good
stuff so I save it for use on objects suitable for its properties. I
wouldn't use it for galaxies with the possible exception of M51 and M33.
The reason for this is that nebulosity is visible on real deep images on
these two. The situation for slide films is much better, Fuji Provia and
Kodak E200 are exceptional with good red response and useable for any object
desired. Then there is the holy grail of all Astro Film .... Kodak Tech Pan
which is B&W but is extremely fine grained, has terrific color response and
only drawback is horrible reciprocity which can be resolved by hypering.
Also of value for Lunar photography is Kodak T-Max. T-Max suffers from
reciprocity failure but with Lunar/Planetary photography this is seldom
a problem.

To Summarize:

1) Nebulae, NGC7000, Horsehead, M42 etc Old Kodak Supra or Kodak E200

2) Galaxies and Open/Globular Clusters, Hypered Tech Pan or E200

3) Lunar/Planetary, Fuji Superia 100, Tech Pan, T-Max, Tri-X

4) Reflection Nebulae Witch Head M45, Kodak Supra 400, Provia. E200 is
a bit weak on blues but is useable.

5) Widefield (ie: Piggyback) Kodak E200, Provia and Someone has suggested
that they have had *reasonable* results with Kodak Max Versatility 800 but
I have no empirical data to support it as I have yet to try it.

I don't have an answer, but I do have a follow on question: Is it possible
to do wide field film photography in the range of magnitude 4.5 to 5.5
skies?

hummmmm glutton for punishment aren't we ? laughs. Seriously ... it *is*
possible but I would run some tests to determine how long you can actually
have a shutter open before sky-fog ruins the picture. Longer focal length
lenses will obviously increase this time. With an 8inch Schmidt Camera,
203mm f/1.5, using hypered Tech Pan and a wratten 92 (dark red) filter I
can sometimes go as long as 18 minutes from my house. I try and do all
of my testing from my backyard which means I try many different set-ups
and most *work* to some extent. Those that do, I use when I visit my dark
sky locations.

Ha Filters can be very useable in this type of photography as well.

if you are seriously interested in Wide Field work I would recommend
Robert Reeves Book available from Willman Bell. He pretty much covers
it all. Great Book.

Regards

Bill
--

William R. Mattil | If Con is the opposite of Pro .... Then
Sr. System Aministrator | is Congress the opposite of Progress ? -
(972) 399-4106 | Gallagher

"Glenn Mulno" wrote in message ...
Hi All,

Just curious what people use for 35mm film (for those that still use a
manual camera and not CCD)? Do you use different films for different
purposes (i.e. maybe one film for the moon and one for deep sky)?

My most recent pictures included some pictures of the
Moon on Kodak Portra 160 NC, and some piggyback pictures
on Fuji Press 400. Both of these were "what they had
at the camera store" purchases. I was looking for fine
grain and decent exposure latitude for the former, and
good speed with vivid colours for the latter.

Curiously, emission nebulae come out pink on Fuji
Press 800 (e.g. Orion, Eta Carinae), but come out
greyish-green on Fuji Press 400 (e.g. North American
Nebula). I obviously must plan another trip to
Australia to confirm the colour of the Eta Carinae
nebula. :-)

BTW: of course people still use film cameras. CCDs have
their uses (and are very good at them), but wide-field
photography is still very much the province of film, and
is likely to remain that way for a while. Some of the
hype is just that: hype.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89lg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.57 N 123 0.24 W - Hospital/Shafte

Just curious what people use for 35mm film (for those that still use a
manual camera and not CCD)? Do you use different films for different
purposes (i.e. maybe one film for the moon and one for deep sky)?

Hi:

Ektachrome on those rare occasions (very rare) when I shoot film, anymore.
However, if we DO get a great comet next year, I imagine I'll be shooting a
_lot_.
:-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

"William R. Mattil" wrote in part:
Glenn,

Absolutely. There are currently no decent print films for capturing
the ~650nm emissions. Kodak and Fuji have *improved* their print films
and in the process ruined them for this purpose. The last truely great
Astro print film was *old* Kodak Supra 400. This has, sadly, been changed
and the new version isn't very good.

Kodak Max 800 film has red sensitivity very similar to "*old* Kodak
Supra 400" (except faster). I agree with you on most other films. They are
better if you are shooting morning glories, but not as good for nebulas.Here
is a link to a sample shot on Kodak 800 (actually a composite of 7 frames):

http://homepage.mac.com/randrews4/.P...eteorComp2.jpg

In article ,
Ron Andrews wrote:

Kodak Max 800 film has red sensitivity very similar to "*old* Kodak
Supra 400" (except faster). I agree with you on most other films. They are
better if you are shooting morning glories, but not as good for nebulas.Here
is a link to a sample shot on Kodak 800 (actually a composite of 7 frames):

Ron,

You must have missed this part of my response eh ?

Someone has suggested
that they have had *reasonable* results with Kodak Max Versatility 800 but
I have no empirical data to support it as I have yet to try it.

But thanks for the link. The jury isn't quite back yet on the Max 800, at
least on APML. There have been conflicting reports as to its useability.
But one thing is certain. It has more grain than Supra 400. therefore
less desireable IMHO But still nice to know that there is at least one
current print film that works.

Regards

Bill

--

William R. Mattil | Statisticians define a lottery as a tax
Sr. System Aministrator | on not understanding mathematics
(972) 399-4106 |

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Bill,

When you say the old Supra, are you suggesting that there is a new
Supra?

That *is* exactly what I mean. Kodak in their infinite brilliance decided
approx a year ago that they would "improve" Supra 400. They destroyed its
useability as an Astro Film and create havoc with the Skyshooters that I
know. Everyone was scrambling finding sellers with the *old* stock and
comparing experation dates trying to determine which was new and which
was old. Personally, I opted for approx 350 rolls of the good stuff and
its safely stored in my 'fridge laughs More film than food in there if I
count the remaining stock of PPF, hypered Tech Pan and bricks of E200.

Or did they simply replace Supra with Portra?

No. And Portra blows chunks as an Astro-Film.

If I find some
film called Kodak Supra 400, is that the new supra? Or should I buy it?

This is from memory so caveat emptor, any Supra with an experation date
of mid 2004 or later is likely to be the new stuff and essentially
worthless unless you want pictures of your wife and kids. I would urge
you to join the APML, or at least read through the archives on this. Its
an entertaining read :^) As new sources for the old film were found the
info was posted and the feeding frenzy began. Quite funny, but sad too.

According to the Kodak file: (sorry for the long URL)

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...2519/e2519.pdf

it doesn't look like this film is especially senstive near the 700nm
wavelength.

Yep .... thats the new *improved* (read as trashed) Supra. The old stuff
is a wonderful Astro-Film. Much better than PPF and it continues to suck
up photons long after the one hour mark. In fact some people claim that
the old Supra isn't really good until your exposures exceed 20 minutes.
they indicate that is where it really takes off.

So the short story is that Astro Films are in short supply these days.
Hopefully the situation will improve ...... Film is just more fun than
CCD. Somehow to me, holding the negative in my hand somehow makes it more
real. Opinions will vary on this naturally.

Regards

Bill
--

William R. Mattil | Statisticians define a lottery as a tax
Sr. System Aministrator | on not understanding mathematics
(972) 399-4106 |

Yes, use a Hutech Idas filter.. very effective in light pollution, nice
color rendition and almost no increase in exposure time. BTW, dont use it
for visual, it hardly has an effect used visually.

Much better color rendition than the Lumicon filter..The IDAS can also be
used in dark skies, there it renders images that do not require computer
image processing... excellent results if you just want to print the stuff
at the local 1hr photo store.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:29:27 -0400, "Stephen Paul"
wrote:

I don't have an answer, but I do have a follow on question: Is it possible
to do wide field film photography in the range of magnitude 4.5 to 5.5
skies?

Thanks,
Stephen Paul

Herm
Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez