Thoughts, etc: August's Total Solar Eclipse

A while back I considered posting a reply to Davoud's "Angular Diameter of Solar Corona?" thread. Instead I provide this semi-related posting.

On Feb. 26, 1979 I lived within the path of totality in western Montana. I skipped my university classes (math, physics, and astronomy) on that date and traveled 200 miles or so eastward to improve my chances of clear skies. With me were two friends - one of which is now my wife. The other brought along his 3.5" Questar. I brought an 8" f/10 Dynamax-8 (a scope with a, shall we say, "horrible" reputation for quality).

My friend used ASA 200 color film (for prints). I used Kodachrome 64 color slide film.

when we returned home we both took our film to the same place for processing. I was unaware of a (tentative?) agreement between my friend and the store to sell copies of his photos to the general public until . . .

My slides came in and the store greatly preferred my photos over my friend's Questar photos. The store ended up sending selected slides to a custom lab to make large-format negatives to produce prints to sell. (They decided not to use any of the photos taken through the Questar.)

One reason for posting this story is to point out that a wider field (capable of showing more corona) is not necessary better than a narrower field that shows red prominences along with a great deal of inner-corona structure.

My scope's quality (both optically and mechanically) was without question lower than that of my friend's Questar, but his photos (while showing more of the corona) over-exposed and washed-out the delicate structure of the inner corona along with the prominences. Of course, he also made a poorer choice of film - choosing a fast, coarser grained film. The store ended up selling 11x14 inch (and smaller) prints from my fine-grained color slide film..

When the slides are projected quite a bit if detail is visible that doesn't show up in the prints - such is the nature of slides.

I still have the slides and the over-sized negatives made from them. Each slide is labeled with the exact time (within one second) taken along with the exposure time. I 'bracketed' a wide range of exposure times. Shutter clicks on a short-wave WWV recording were used to pin down the time for each picture.

I have reason to believe that copies of my photos are still being produced and have shown up in books and other places without correctly specifying their true origin . . .

Another benefit from observing the 1979 eclipse from eastern Montana was the snow cover on the ground. Just prior to and just after totality shadow bands were easy to see against the smooth, white background. Attempts to photograph the shadow bands were unsuccessful, but all three of us saw them without difficulty.

So what are my plans this time?

I've thought about photography. I've considered photography through one scope combined with visual observation through another. I've thought about just visual observation and sketching, and I've thought about just observing - and perhaps only after totality making a sketch.

Currently I'm leaning toward the last option, but a final decision hasn't been made yet. I already have some of the best photos that were taken of the 1979 eclipse. I wouldn't be too terribly disappointed even if I missed the August 21st eclipse. I could stay behind and show area students the partial phases - but this option would most likely be made only if clouds strongly threaten my totality plans while clear skies are predicted for home.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Saturday, 24 June 2017 03:08:32 UTC+2, Sketcher wrote:
A while back I considered posting a reply to Davoud's "Angular Diameter of Solar Corona?" thread. Instead I provide this semi-related posting.

On Feb. 26, 1979 I lived within the path of totality in western Montana. I skipped my university classes (math, physics, and astronomy) on that date and traveled 200 miles or so eastward to improve my chances of clear skies. With me were two friends - one of which is now my wife. The other brought along his 3.5" Questar. I brought an 8" f/10 Dynamax-8 (a scope with a, shall we say, "horrible" reputation for quality).

My friend used ASA 200 color film (for prints). I used Kodachrome 64 color slide film.

when we returned home we both took our film to the same place for processing. I was unaware of a (tentative?) agreement between my friend and the store to sell copies of his photos to the general public until . . .

My slides came in and the store greatly preferred my photos over my friend's Questar photos. The store ended up sending selected slides to a custom lab to make large-format negatives to produce prints to sell. (They decided not to use any of the photos taken through the Questar.)

One reason for posting this story is to point out that a wider field (capable of showing more corona) is not necessary better than a narrower field that shows red prominences along with a great deal of inner-corona structure.

My scope's quality (both optically and mechanically) was without question lower than that of my friend's Questar, but his photos (while showing more of the corona) over-exposed and washed-out the delicate structure of the inner corona along with the prominences. Of course, he also made a poorer choice of film - choosing a fast, coarser grained film. The store ended up selling 11x14 inch (and smaller) prints from my fine-grained color slide film.

When the slides are projected quite a bit if detail is visible that doesn't show up in the prints - such is the nature of slides.

I still have the slides and the over-sized negatives made from them. Each slide is labeled with the exact time (within one second) taken along with the exposure time. I 'bracketed' a wide range of exposure times. Shutter clicks on a short-wave WWV recording were used to pin down the time for each picture.

I have reason to believe that copies of my photos are still being produced and have shown up in books and other places without correctly specifying their true origin . . .

Another benefit from observing the 1979 eclipse from eastern Montana was the snow cover on the ground. Just prior to and just after totality shadow bands were easy to see against the smooth, white background. Attempts to photograph the shadow bands were unsuccessful, but all three of us saw them without difficulty.

So what are my plans this time?

I've thought about photography. I've considered photography through one scope combined with visual observation through another. I've thought about just visual observation and sketching, and I've thought about just observing - and perhaps only after totality making a sketch.

Currently I'm leaning toward the last option, but a final decision hasn't been made yet. I already have some of the best photos that were taken of the 1979 eclipse. I wouldn't be too terribly disappointed even if I missed the August 21st eclipse. I could stay behind and show area students the partial phases - but this option would most likely be made only if clouds strongly threaten my totality plans while clear skies are predicted for home.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

Some sort of automated imaging would be preferable these days. So that the unique and unforgettable eclipse can be thoroughly enjoyed by all the human senses. Images can indeed be enjoyed forever and even fill one with pride of accomplishment. Actual memories of an event are something else altogether. Being present is never the same as seeing it happen on the news or as special effects on the endless, rip-off TV series.

I am reminded of the peloton of a great cycle race flashing past as everybody tries to record the moment. And so completely miss having anything [at all] to remember. As in: Was I [even] there? The only thing I can actually remember is being hit on the ankle by a flying water bottle! The rest is a complete blur.

You are a great believer in the subjective, human connection to observation and your physical environment. Don't let the equipment get between you and the moment this time. There will inevitably be much stiffer competition for imaging trophies this time. So why try to compete? A comfortable deck chair and some DIY solar film goggles should do. Perhaps with similarly, safety-filtered binoculars for an occasional closer view. ;-)

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:51:07 PM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 24 June 2017 03:08:32 UTC+2, Sketcher wrote:
A while back I considered posting a reply to Davoud's "Angular Diameter of Solar Corona?" thread. Instead I provide this semi-related posting.

On Feb. 26, 1979 I lived within the path of totality in western Montana.. I skipped my university classes (math, physics, and astronomy) on that date and traveled 200 miles or so eastward to improve my chances of clear skies. With me were two friends - one of which is now my wife. The other brought along his 3.5" Questar. I brought an 8" f/10 Dynamax-8 (a scope with a, shall we say, "horrible" reputation for quality).

My friend used ASA 200 color film (for prints). I used Kodachrome 64 color slide film.

when we returned home we both took our film to the same place for processing. I was unaware of a (tentative?) agreement between my friend and the store to sell copies of his photos to the general public until . . .

My slides came in and the store greatly preferred my photos over my friend's Questar photos. The store ended up sending selected slides to a custom lab to make large-format negatives to produce prints to sell. (They decided not to use any of the photos taken through the Questar.)

One reason for posting this story is to point out that a wider field (capable of showing more corona) is not necessary better than a narrower field that shows red prominences along with a great deal of inner-corona structure.

My scope's quality (both optically and mechanically) was without question lower than that of my friend's Questar, but his photos (while showing more of the corona) over-exposed and washed-out the delicate structure of the inner corona along with the prominences. Of course, he also made a poorer choice of film - choosing a fast, coarser grained film. The store ended up selling 11x14 inch (and smaller) prints from my fine-grained color slide film.

When the slides are projected quite a bit if detail is visible that doesn't show up in the prints - such is the nature of slides.

I still have the slides and the over-sized negatives made from them. Each slide is labeled with the exact time (within one second) taken along with the exposure time. I 'bracketed' a wide range of exposure times. Shutter clicks on a short-wave WWV recording were used to pin down the time for each picture.

I have reason to believe that copies of my photos are still being produced and have shown up in books and other places without correctly specifying their true origin . . .

Another benefit from observing the 1979 eclipse from eastern Montana was the snow cover on the ground. Just prior to and just after totality shadow bands were easy to see against the smooth, white background. Attempts to photograph the shadow bands were unsuccessful, but all three of us saw them without difficulty.

So what are my plans this time?

I've thought about photography. I've considered photography through one scope combined with visual observation through another. I've thought about just visual observation and sketching, and I've thought about just observing - and perhaps only after totality making a sketch.

Currently I'm leaning toward the last option, but a final decision hasn't been made yet. I already have some of the best photos that were taken of the 1979 eclipse. I wouldn't be too terribly disappointed even if I missed the August 21st eclipse. I could stay behind and show area students the partial phases - but this option would most likely be made only if clouds strongly threaten my totality plans while clear skies are predicted for home.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

Some sort of automated imaging would be preferable these days. So that the unique and unforgettable eclipse can be thoroughly enjoyed by all the human senses. Images can indeed be enjoyed forever and even fill one with pride of accomplishment. Actual memories of an event are something else altogether. Being present is never the same as seeing it happen on the news or as special effects on the endless, rip-off TV series.

I am reminded of the peloton of a great cycle race flashing past as everybody tries to record the moment. And so completely miss having anything [at all] to remember. As in: Was I [even] there? The only thing I can actually remember is being hit on the ankle by a flying water bottle! The rest is a complete blur.

You are a great believer in the subjective, human connection to observation and your physical environment. Don't let the equipment get between you and the moment this time. There will inevitably be much stiffer competition for imaging trophies this time. So why try to compete? A comfortable deck chair and some DIY solar film goggles should do. Perhaps with similarly, safety-filtered binoculars for an occasional closer view. ;-)

Just get a long zoom camera like the Canon SX40 or 50, no need for bulky telescope. Last partial eclipse, took very nice photos of the event, handheld with my SX-40, while enjoying the eclipse through welding goggles.

Canon SX50
50x optical zoom (24-1200mm) and 24mm wide-angle lens with Optical Image Stabilizer
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSh.../dp/B009B0MZ1M

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Sketcher
wrote:

One reason for posting this story is to point out that a wider field (capable of showing more corona) is not necessary better than a narrower field that shows red prominences along with a great deal of inner-corona structure.

That's certainly true. You always need to consider your imaging goals.
Of course, modern electronic cameras have much higher resolution than
any 35mm film cameras from 30 years ago. It's now completely possible
to capture the entire field, to the outside of the corona, at a pixel
scale that is seeing limited. So you no longer have to choose between
the corona and the limb if you're using a single imaging device.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:51:04 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

Some sort of automated imaging would be preferable these days. So that the unique and unforgettable eclipse can be thoroughly enjoyed by all the human senses.

Definitely. I'm planning on running two cameras. A wide field, fixed
camera to capture the entire eclipse, and a narrow field camera on a
tracking mount to get a closeup sequence, including a fast series of
bracketed shots throughout totality. The wide field sequence will be
managed by an intervalometer, and the narrow field sequence by
scripted control on a linked computer. I intend to be enjoying the
eclipse as a visual experience while the imaging is largely automated.

Chris.B:
Some sort of automated imaging would be preferable these days. So that the
unique and unforgettable eclipse can be thoroughly enjoyed by all the human
senses.

Chris L Peterson:
Definitely. I'm planning on running two cameras. A wide field, fixed
camera to capture the entire eclipse, and a narrow field camera on a
tracking mount to get a closeup sequence, including a fast series of
bracketed shots throughout totality. The wide field sequence will be
managed by an intervalometer, and the narrow field sequence by
scripted control on a linked computer. I intend to be enjoying the
eclipse as a visual experience while the imaging is largely automated.

Ditto. I'll have a friend with me and he'll be using a Canon 7D Mark II
(crop-sensor) with a Canon 100-400 zoom on an equatorial mount, similar
to this https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/35268409262. Effective
FL will be 640mm. A Hinode solar guide device will provide precise
tracking and an intervalometer will handle exposures for a hands-free,
eyes-free experience.

Here is the image scale from a crop-sensor camera and the 100-400mm
zoom, with and without a Canon 2x extender:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/35435062805. I believe my
friend will opt not to use the extender, at least not during totality.

I'll be using my newly rehabbed 35-year-old Questar
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/35494951565 with a Canon
full-frame camera tethered to a laptop for automated shooting; this
will be /nearly/ hands-and-eyes free. EFL with a Questar reducer will
be ~840mm. My wife will tend to a second full-frame Canon with a
16-35mm zoom, FL TBD, also with an intervalometer. Also recording the
whole shebang will be a GoPro making maybe six photos per minute
throughout, entirely unattended.

I'm relying on my friend to capture the corona with the telephoto, as
the Questar would likely clip part of it with vignetting. There is
considerable uncertainty there, however. I spoke to a solar astronomer
at Goddard this morning and he said that, as quiet as the Sun has been
of late as we move toward a solar minimum, an extensive corona seems
unlikely.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 8:08:32 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
A while back I considered posting a reply to Davoud's "Angular Diameter of Solar Corona?" thread. Instead I provide this semi-related posting.

On Feb. 26, 1979 I lived within the path of totality in western Montana. I skipped my university classes (math, physics, and astronomy) on that date and traveled 200 miles or so eastward to improve my chances of clear skies. With me were two friends - one of which is now my wife. The other brought along his 3.5" Questar. I brought an 8" f/10 Dynamax-8 (a scope with a, shall we say, "horrible" reputation for quality).

My friend used ASA 200 color film (for prints). I used Kodachrome 64 color slide film.

when we returned home we both took our film to the same place for processing. I was unaware of a (tentative?) agreement between my friend and the store to sell copies of his photos to the general public until . . .

My slides came in and the store greatly preferred my photos over my friend's Questar photos. The store ended up sending selected slides to a custom lab to make large-format negatives to produce prints to sell. (They decided not to use any of the photos taken through the Questar.)

One reason for posting this story is to point out that a wider field (capable of showing more corona) is not necessary better than a narrower field that shows red prominences along with a great deal of inner-corona structure.

My scope's quality (both optically and mechanically) was without question lower than that of my friend's Questar, but his photos (while showing more of the corona) over-exposed and washed-out the delicate structure of the inner corona along with the prominences. Of course, he also made a poorer choice of film - choosing a fast, coarser grained film. The store ended up selling 11x14 inch (and smaller) prints from my fine-grained color slide film.

When the slides are projected quite a bit if detail is visible that doesn't show up in the prints - such is the nature of slides.

I still have the slides and the over-sized negatives made from them. Each slide is labeled with the exact time (within one second) taken along with the exposure time. I 'bracketed' a wide range of exposure times. Shutter clicks on a short-wave WWV recording were used to pin down the time for each picture.

I have reason to believe that copies of my photos are still being produced and have shown up in books and other places without correctly specifying their true origin . . .

Another benefit from observing the 1979 eclipse from eastern Montana was the snow cover on the ground. Just prior to and just after totality shadow bands were easy to see against the smooth, white background. Attempts to photograph the shadow bands were unsuccessful, but all three of us saw them without difficulty.

So what are my plans this time?

I've thought about photography. I've considered photography through one scope combined with visual observation through another. I've thought about just visual observation and sketching, and I've thought about just observing - and perhaps only after totality making a sketch.

Currently I'm leaning toward the last option, but a final decision hasn't been made yet. I already have some of the best photos that were taken of the 1979 eclipse. I wouldn't be too terribly disappointed even if I missed the August 21st eclipse. I could stay behind and show area students the partial phases - but this option would most likely be made only if clouds strongly threaten my totality plans while clear skies are predicted for home.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

I'm going both high tech and low tech. For high tech I'll be using a 130mm F6.3 refractor that is capable of imaging the inner corona at high resolution with a Canon 6D full frame digital camera. I won't be handling this outfit, but leave the exposures to my capable companion.

For low tech, I am bringing my trusty Pentax 6x7 cm film camera loaded with fine grained Kodak Ektar film. The 155F7 refractor will have a special radial gradient filter that will compensate for the high brightness range of the inner and outer corona which will result in an image that closely matches what you will see visually. I used the same outfit for the 1991 Baja eclipse that earned a cover image in the October issue of S&T magazine.

I expect the Canon camera to produce much higher resolution than the large format Pentax because digital resolution is now some 10 times higher than film, but I have a certain romantic attachment to this old chemical way to create images.

Razzy

On Monday, 26 June 2017 13:07:31 UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 8:08:32 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
A while back I considered posting a reply to Davoud's "Angular Diameter of Solar Corona?" thread. Instead I provide this semi-related posting.

On Feb. 26, 1979 I lived within the path of totality in western Montana.. I skipped my university classes (math, physics, and astronomy) on that date and traveled 200 miles or so eastward to improve my chances of clear skies. With me were two friends - one of which is now my wife. The other brought along his 3.5" Questar. I brought an 8" f/10 Dynamax-8 (a scope with a, shall we say, "horrible" reputation for quality).

My friend used ASA 200 color film (for prints). I used Kodachrome 64 color slide film.

when we returned home we both took our film to the same place for processing. I was unaware of a (tentative?) agreement between my friend and the store to sell copies of his photos to the general public until . . .

My slides came in and the store greatly preferred my photos over my friend's Questar photos. The store ended up sending selected slides to a custom lab to make large-format negatives to produce prints to sell. (They decided not to use any of the photos taken through the Questar.)

One reason for posting this story is to point out that a wider field (capable of showing more corona) is not necessary better than a narrower field that shows red prominences along with a great deal of inner-corona structure.

My scope's quality (both optically and mechanically) was without question lower than that of my friend's Questar, but his photos (while showing more of the corona) over-exposed and washed-out the delicate structure of the inner corona along with the prominences. Of course, he also made a poorer choice of film - choosing a fast, coarser grained film. The store ended up selling 11x14 inch (and smaller) prints from my fine-grained color slide film.

When the slides are projected quite a bit if detail is visible that doesn't show up in the prints - such is the nature of slides.

I still have the slides and the over-sized negatives made from them. Each slide is labeled with the exact time (within one second) taken along with the exposure time. I 'bracketed' a wide range of exposure times. Shutter clicks on a short-wave WWV recording were used to pin down the time for each picture.

I have reason to believe that copies of my photos are still being produced and have shown up in books and other places without correctly specifying their true origin . . .

Another benefit from observing the 1979 eclipse from eastern Montana was the snow cover on the ground. Just prior to and just after totality shadow bands were easy to see against the smooth, white background. Attempts to photograph the shadow bands were unsuccessful, but all three of us saw them without difficulty.

So what are my plans this time?

I've thought about photography. I've considered photography through one scope combined with visual observation through another. I've thought about just visual observation and sketching, and I've thought about just observing - and perhaps only after totality making a sketch.

Currently I'm leaning toward the last option, but a final decision hasn't been made yet. I already have some of the best photos that were taken of the 1979 eclipse. I wouldn't be too terribly disappointed even if I missed the August 21st eclipse. I could stay behind and show area students the partial phases - but this option would most likely be made only if clouds strongly threaten my totality plans while clear skies are predicted for home.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

I'm going both high tech and low tech. For high tech I'll be using a 130mm F6.3 refractor that is capable of imaging the inner corona at high resolution with a Canon 6D full frame digital camera. I won't be handling this outfit, but leave the exposures to my capable companion.

For low tech, I am bringing my trusty Pentax 6x7 cm film camera loaded with fine grained Kodak Ektar film. The 155F7 refractor will have a special radial gradient filter that will compensate for the high brightness range of the inner and outer corona which will result in an image that closely matches what you will see visually. I used the same outfit for the 1991 Baja eclipse that earned a cover image in the October issue of S&T magazine.

I expect the Canon camera to produce much higher resolution than the large format Pentax because digital resolution is now some 10 times higher than film, but I have a certain romantic attachment to this old chemical way to create images.

Razzy

Please! Do NOT say things like that if and when film fanatics are around. Tell them the best common (colour neg) 35mm film lost the resolution battle when digital hit about 8mp and they go berserk. They admonish you for not scanning your film on a $30,000 Imacon drum scanner!

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:38:41 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 26 June 2017 13:07:31 UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 8:08:32 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
A while back I considered posting a reply to Davoud's "Angular Diameter of Solar Corona?" thread. Instead I provide this semi-related posting.

On Feb. 26, 1979 I lived within the path of totality in western Montana. I skipped my university classes (math, physics, and astronomy) on that date and traveled 200 miles or so eastward to improve my chances of clear skies. With me were two friends - one of which is now my wife. The other brought along his 3.5" Questar. I brought an 8" f/10 Dynamax-8 (a scope with a, shall we say, "horrible" reputation for quality).

My friend used ASA 200 color film (for prints). I used Kodachrome 64 color slide film.

when we returned home we both took our film to the same place for processing. I was unaware of a (tentative?) agreement between my friend and the store to sell copies of his photos to the general public until . . .

My slides came in and the store greatly preferred my photos over my friend's Questar photos. The store ended up sending selected slides to a custom lab to make large-format negatives to produce prints to sell. (They decided not to use any of the photos taken through the Questar.)

One reason for posting this story is to point out that a wider field (capable of showing more corona) is not necessary better than a narrower field that shows red prominences along with a great deal of inner-corona structure.

My scope's quality (both optically and mechanically) was without question lower than that of my friend's Questar, but his photos (while showing more of the corona) over-exposed and washed-out the delicate structure of the inner corona along with the prominences. Of course, he also made a poorer choice of film - choosing a fast, coarser grained film. The store ended up selling 11x14 inch (and smaller) prints from my fine-grained color slide film.

When the slides are projected quite a bit if detail is visible that doesn't show up in the prints - such is the nature of slides.

I still have the slides and the over-sized negatives made from them. Each slide is labeled with the exact time (within one second) taken along with the exposure time. I 'bracketed' a wide range of exposure times. Shutter clicks on a short-wave WWV recording were used to pin down the time for each picture.

I have reason to believe that copies of my photos are still being produced and have shown up in books and other places without correctly specifying their true origin . . .

Another benefit from observing the 1979 eclipse from eastern Montana was the snow cover on the ground. Just prior to and just after totality shadow bands were easy to see against the smooth, white background. Attempts to photograph the shadow bands were unsuccessful, but all three of us saw them without difficulty.

So what are my plans this time?

I've thought about photography. I've considered photography through one scope combined with visual observation through another. I've thought about just visual observation and sketching, and I've thought about just observing - and perhaps only after totality making a sketch.

Currently I'm leaning toward the last option, but a final decision hasn't been made yet. I already have some of the best photos that were taken of the 1979 eclipse. I wouldn't be too terribly disappointed even if I missed the August 21st eclipse. I could stay behind and show area students the partial phases - but this option would most likely be made only if clouds strongly threaten my totality plans while clear skies are predicted for home.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

I'm going both high tech and low tech. For high tech I'll be using a 130mm F6.3 refractor that is capable of imaging the inner corona at high resolution with a Canon 6D full frame digital camera. I won't be handling this outfit, but leave the exposures to my capable companion.

For low tech, I am bringing my trusty Pentax 6x7 cm film camera loaded with fine grained Kodak Ektar film. The 155F7 refractor will have a special radial gradient filter that will compensate for the high brightness range of the inner and outer corona which will result in an image that closely matches what you will see visually. I used the same outfit for the 1991 Baja eclipse that earned a cover image in the October issue of S&T magazine.

I expect the Canon camera to produce much higher resolution than the large format Pentax because digital resolution is now some 10 times higher than film, but I have a certain romantic attachment to this old chemical way to create images.

Razzy

Please! Do NOT say things like that if and when film fanatics are around.. Tell them the best common (colour neg) 35mm film lost the resolution battle when digital hit about 8mp and they go berserk. They admonish you for not scanning your film on a $30,000 Imacon drum scanner!

I'm not shooting with 35mm film. I'm using 6x7cm film, but even that does not produce as high a resolution as a Canon 6D 35mm digital camera. You have to go to 4x5" format to exceed a 35mm digital image.

Razzy.