Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

why you are using film nowadays??

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
39 replies to this topic

#1 stalker

stalker

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2010

Posted 11 January 2011 - 07:44 AM

hello friends, i m a photographer (with only film equipment)
i appreciate a lot the fact that the film is still in use in astrophotography..

why you are continuing to use (or prefer) the film in astrophotography ?

the ccd sensor have a lot of resolution nowadays...

chromatic resolution i think...

#2 valy

valy

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 206
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009

Posted 11 January 2011 - 08:25 AM

FF at a fraction of the digital FF price. No batteries. Long exposure time without the worries of "burning" pixels.

#3 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,772
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2009

Posted 11 January 2011 - 09:41 AM

There are a couple of threads about this. But in my case with a non electronic camera there is NO limit on lower temperature. You or the telescope will freeze first. It works better with wide angle constellation shots in sky glow areas. My darker site still have too much sky glow for DLSR or any digital constellation imaging. You just can't take a dark out of a sky glow picture. It will leave black spots all over it. You have to fix it one hot pixel at a time. For my noisy Canon 10d that's too time consuming. Speaking of time I get a picture in 10 to 15 minutes like these. No hours or days with filters and hours of processing.

I posted these before but most of these were taken with Fuji color film, a ST-120 at PF and a ST-80 with SSAG on my Atlas. A few were taken with the new Kodak B&W film. That film I want to test RGB and other narror band imaging just to see how that would work. While these pictures are not perfect they were quick to take.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Below: 159402 at close approach (small streak right of center).

Posted Image

Those are all film shots.

I need to work more on my mount alignment and critical focusing for better pictures. I have a Canon 10D and a SBIG ST7 but my best pictures are all from film.

William

#4 tuc

tuc

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2010

Posted 11 January 2011 - 10:43 AM

William,
This is probably a loaded question, but why does digital imaging require filters? I know with my landscape photos the challenge is to `get it right` on film, which means very little or no processing afterwards. But to achieve this I usually need to rely on some filters (eg. neutral density) to balance the tone. Regardless though, the work is done in the field which means no time is spent `fixing`the image afterwards on the computer. Is this the same idea with astrophotography?

#5 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 226
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2010

Posted 11 January 2011 - 11:32 AM

See the recent thread "Why?"

You can definitely count me as film shooter, but regarding low temperatures, actually I've heard of a couple of cases of the film freezing at very low temperatures (-40), so it becomes brittle and breaks or you can't advance the film. But of course the advantage of an older film camera is that you can use it entirely without requiring any power, so you won't have battery problems like a DSLR.

Dave Kodama

#6 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 11 January 2011 - 12:56 PM

I don't want to awaken any trolls, so all I can say is that this is a hobby for me and I like to do things a little different. Quality is not a problem for film. Also, I do not like to constantly upgrade equipment, I can't afford it. My equipment does not suffer from planned obsolescence. Of course you could claim film itself is obsolete. Then you really would be claiming more than you could substantiate.

#7 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,772
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2009

Posted 11 January 2011 - 01:49 PM

William,
This is probably a loaded question, but why does digital imaging require filters? I know with my landscape photos the challenge is to `get it right` on film, which means very little or no processing afterwards. But to achieve this I usually need to rely on some filters (eg. neutral density) to balance the tone. Regardless though, the work is done in the field which means no time is spent `fixing`the image afterwards on the computer. Is this the same idea with astrophotography?


Digital and filters is another topic all together. You can use them or not depends on a lot of things. I was talking about using the new black and white film from Kodak and using RGB filters as well as OIII and Ha. To see how it would come out if you stacked them after the film is processed. In monochrome digital cameras (black and white) you use red, green and blue filters then combine them for a color image. You usually get better picutres than a straight color digital camera. This also depends on a number of items. I want to try using the B&W film in the same way. That is to get a color image out of five or six black & white filtered ones (Red, Green, Blue, Oxygen III, Hydrogen alpha and Sulfur).

I have also taken shots down to -40 with no problems. That was inside a unheated dome. That might make a little difference than totally exposed.
William

#8 calder

calder

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2005

Posted 12 January 2011 - 03:44 AM

Several reasons I'm still using film 1. Longevity- I purchased all my film cameras more than 35 years ago and they are all still working well. I have a 7 megapixel Olympus C-7000 point and shoot that is 5 years old and has bad pixels already plus at 7MP it's considered obsolete when compared with the latest DSLRs. 2. The obsolescence upgrade merry go round, As long as film is still being manufactured I know that I can still use it in my camera. I wish I could say the same for the operating system on my computer which needs to be replaced every 3 to 5 years because the OS and software is not really backwards compatible and or supported. 3. Simplicity, I have enough stuff to haul to and set up at my observing site without having to deal with all the wiring the laptop and extra batteries needed for digital AP. If I had a permanent observatory this would not be as large a factor as it is now.
I agree that the resolution of the newer chips has reached a point where I would consider a dedicated CCD camera for narrow field work but for very wide field work I'll stick with my film cameras especially my M645 and Yashica TLR.

Clear Skies,
Bob

#9 TxStars

TxStars

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005

Posted 12 January 2011 - 11:14 AM

I do have a DSLR but I realy like to look at the negs on my light table.
Will be using mainly film till they make a 3 micron sq pix 35mm chip camera that will cost $500.00 US dollars.

#10 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 226
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2010

Posted 12 January 2011 - 12:54 PM

While we're on the subject of dreaming -- I'm waiting for a medium format (6x7 minimum) chip with perhaps 9 micron pixels, stand-alone operation (no computer required), and suitable for astrophotography (e.g. not noisy for long exposures). I'll pay $1000-$2000. :)

However, to get real, I'm pretty sure large pieces of silicon will remain very, very expensive. I just hope my supply of film lasts long enough for that dream camera to come along or till I'm done with astrophotography (i.e. retired or in the ground).

Dave

#11 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 12 January 2011 - 01:23 PM

Could there be a Pentax 67D on the horizon? It just better have low noise and be able to disable the automated DFS (Dark Frame Subtraction)something Pentax has been unwilling to do in its DSLR line.

Unlike the competition, even today the best Pentax camera for astrophotography is still a film camera.

#12 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,772
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2009

Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:34 PM

Could there be a Pentax 67D on the horizon? It just better have low noise and be able to disable the automated DFS (Dark Frame Subtraction)something Pentax has been unwilling to do in its DSLR line.

Unlike the competition, even today the best Pentax camera for astrophotography is still a film camera.


The DFS was the reason I bought a used Canon 10d to play with instead of a new Pentax DSLR. It's just most DSLR's are too noisy over 30 seconds with out taking a dark. Very few are low noise. This is a problem under light polluted skies. Another major reason for film use. All of my pictures above were taken with a Pentax Super Program film camera. Some times I will use an old Praktica on very cold (-40) nights.
William

#13 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 12 January 2011 - 10:52 PM

Valy - welcome to the film forum. Have you been shooting film long? Please join in often.

igor

#14 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 12 January 2011 - 10:55 PM

Because I absolutely love film. Period.

#15 Rick Thurmond

Rick Thurmond

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2006

Posted 12 January 2011 - 11:05 PM

Dave, If that camera comes along, let me know and I'll buy one too!
Rick

#16 valy

valy

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 206
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009

Posted 13 January 2011 - 09:28 AM

Valy - welcome to the film forum. Have you been shooting film long? Please join in often.

igor

Thanks. I bought a pentax mx + zenitar 16mm fish eye (for wide field, meteors). This is to complement the digital pentax that I have. Untill now only 2 films: one during daylight, one during night, but unfortunately I've ruined the night one (just curios, opened the back door to preview the shoots, forgot there is no preview in film area ;)).
Hope to join with photos too.

#17 tuc

tuc

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2010

Posted 13 January 2011 - 12:30 PM

I also love film and mechanical cameras. Two years ago I stepped-up to a Nikon F4. (The F5 was just too electronic for my liking!) This is the camera I`ve been taking on my yearly group photo tours and I always get harrassed--sometimes teasingly, sometimes not--that I`m "still" using film. But on this year's photo tour one of the hard-core digital using regulars came up to me and whispered that she had just bought a Leica film camera on-line and was having more fun with it. It made me laugh that she seemed so embarrassed that someone might hear her say that.
I think for this year's tour I'll bring my Mamiya c330f and really mess with their minds!

#18 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 226
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2010

Posted 13 January 2011 - 01:11 PM

Opening the back of the camera for a "preview" is one that I haven't heard before!

Seriously, though, I'm surprised no one has come out with a hybrid camera which would take a film and digital shot at the same time (or rapid sequence). You could use the digital shot to verify that your exposure and framing were good and the film shot as your "keeper" shot.

Dave

#19 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,772
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2009

Posted 13 January 2011 - 03:27 PM

Opening the back of the camera for a "preview" is one that I haven't heard before!

Seriously, though, I'm surprised no one has come out with a hybrid camera which would take a film and digital shot at the same time (or rapid sequence). You could use the digital shot to verify that your exposure and framing were good and the film shot as your "keeper" shot.

Dave


H'mm. Some of the more modern film cameras do have data backs. They could have made sensor backs for these. Too bad they did not try that. My Super Programs could have been digital too.
William

#20 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 13 January 2011 - 06:47 PM

I posted these before but most of these were taken with Fuji color film, a ST-120 at PF and a ST-80 with SSAG on my Atlas. A few were taken with the new Kodak B&W film. That film I want to test RGB and other narror band imaging just to see how that would work. While these pictures are not perfect they were quick to take.

William


William,

What new Kodak B&W film are we talking about? TMAX 400 (TMY-2)? It looks promising.

Jim

#21 Hikari

Hikari

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

Posted 13 January 2011 - 06:49 PM

Seriously, though, I'm surprised no one has come out with a hybrid camera which would take a film and digital shot at the same time (or rapid sequence). You could use the digital shot to verify that your exposure and framing were good and the film shot as your "keeper" shot.

Dave


Kodak and designed such a camera, although it never went into production. A long time ago, I read a few stories where large-format photographers carried a small digital camera for such a purpose. The digital image was also uses for color proofing.

#22 Rick Thurmond

Rick Thurmond

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2006

Posted 13 January 2011 - 08:03 PM

Polaroid film used to be used for that purpose.
Rick

#23 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,772
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2009

Posted 14 January 2011 - 09:04 AM

William,
What new Kodak B&W film are we talking about? TMAX 400 (TMY-2)? It looks promising.Jim


I believe it's the TMAX. Came out a few years ago and processes with the standard C-41 color machines. It's a little more grey than I would like but still does a good job. I am curious to do narrow band imaging with it. Maybe if I can ever get a break in the weather I can get out. It's been way too cloudy and cold for way too long.

William

#24 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 226
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2010

Posted 14 January 2011 - 11:34 AM

I recall seeing the large format guys with polaroid film holders for their test shots. And in fact, I have used my digital camera to take test shots for film shots. This is especially helpful for letting me know that I'll be getting a flash reflection or something else that might compromise the shot.

But I was thinking about full digital camera functionality besides just taking a test shot. That way, you can review all the shots on the roll on the camera and have all the EXIF data to download to your computer to be added to your film scan later.

Oh, well... just dreaming again. Being unable to get out and take astrophotos causes that...

Dave

#25 Hikari

Hikari

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

Posted 14 January 2011 - 04:39 PM

That way, you can review all the shots on the roll on the camera and have all the EXIF data to download to your computer to be added to your film scan later.


I believe the Dynax/Maxxum 9 and 7 had a data recorder that gave the "EXIF" data for the frames on the rolls shoot. I think it had a capacity for about 200 rolls. You also needed the data logger that fit on the camera on the lens mount.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics