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This topic has been archived.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

#26 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 09:55 AM

Here's another main reason I don't like digital at the moment. The first picture is with a DSLR. 103P is very faint.
Posted Image

The next two are stacked from 27 frames. I tried various methods and still came up with the same results. All had no color with some having stars bloated. This was at least 20 hours of computer processing time. Not worth the time for sure.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Both the color is really off and needs a lot of work.

William

#27 tuc

tuc

    Vostok 1

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 12:41 PM

William,
How long would a good image of that take with film?

#28 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 02:41 PM

5-15 Minutes.

William

#29 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 02:44 PM

Will,

When did you shoot the photos and what are the photo details (exposure time, f-stop, etc.)? In theory, you should be able to get all the info you have on film, though it certainly could take more work to do the post processing. I do think the chemical processing that happens with film is amazing and under-appreciated.

Dave

#30 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 03:42 PM

The three I just posted above of 103P Hartley were all taken with a Canon 10D DSLR at prime focus on a ST-80, I think. I don't have the log information here. I used a ST-120 and SSAG for guiding on my Atlas. The stacked were 27 lights all 20 or 30 seconds and about 20 darks that I can remember. Those were not film. While one picture looks good they just won't stack. These were taken 10-5-2010 when comet Hartley was making a close approach. I should have taken a film shot but didn't.

The Orion shots earlier are all film.

William

#31 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 04:17 PM

William,

Thanks for letting us know the date. I was wondering because I did shoot that comet near that time on both film and DSLR, and indeed, the film shot was easier to process (for me). Here's the film shot:

http://astrocamera.net/2010/1008a/

And the DSLR shot:

http://astrocamera.net/2010/1002/

The instruments are of much different focal lengths and f-ratio, so comparisons are tough. I'm sure you can get into a lot of arguments with DSLR, CCD, and film fans because even though the digital processing was easier (single frame), I'm sure someone will argue that getting the film developed and scanning it is more hassle.

Dave

#32 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 04:26 PM

I wished I had done a 10 to 15 minute film shot of the comet. Unfortunately I didn't. Right now I think film is less hassle to deal with considering the 12 hours computer time with little results for those above. My Orion shots are a perfect example. I have yet to get a good digital image of the Flame or Horsehead but easily got it with Fuji film in just 10-15 minutes.

Your film shot of Hartley was great.

William

#33 calder

calder

    Mariner 2

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 04:27 PM

Hi Will,
do you remember what format you used to save your images? From what I understand a lot of the stacking programs do not play well with file formats other than Tiff or Fits. If I remember correctly it was mentioned in another post in the DSLR forums that a lot of color info is lost if trying to stack Jpegs. You might want to ask in the DSLR forums.

Just a thought,

Bob

#34 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 04:43 PM

Or even better, use E200 slide film for shooting the Flame and Horse Head area. Just directly view the result with no post processing at all! It's surprising to many people how easy it is to capture the Horse Head on film.

Dave

#35 tuc

tuc

    Vostok 1

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 07:32 PM

Dave,
I just looked through the photos on your homepage--beautiful!

Ok, so I`ve established that film is great for wide field shots, but what about galaxies?

#36 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

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

Posted 17 January 2011 - 08:55 PM

Thanks! I'm glad you liked them.

I haven't done much long focal length astrophotography, but years ago I admired this photographer's work:

http://www.janis.or....lish-index.html

I've also greatly admired Alan Voetsch's work on galaxies:

http://www.pbase.com...h12952/galaxies

I'd like to move up to doing this sort of shot in the future, but it certainly taxes my patience! The length of exposure necessary gets very, very long and it gets correspondingly easy to have something ruin your shot, so it is a real challenge in my book.

Dave

#37 tuc

tuc

    Vostok 1

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

Posted 18 January 2011 - 12:04 AM

Dave,
Thanks for directing me to those sites. Really nice.

On the Kitahara site there are two photos of M51 at the top of the page, and I noticed that the one on the right lists a total exposure time of 900 minutes (3x300); but one of these 3 exposures was done in 1995, and the other two in 1999. Did he combine three separate slides to get the final image?

Be patient with my ignorance! Although I`m a photographer and astronomer, the combination of the two seems to elude me.

#38 Dave Kodama

Dave Kodama

    Mariner 2

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

Posted 18 January 2011 - 12:18 AM

Yes, I think he combined the 3 shots. It was probably done by combining 3 scans digitally, though just a few years earlier people were physically stacking film in the printing process. Combining 3 separate shots probably cancelled some of the grain noise. It's incredible to me that anyone would be able to take a 5-hour shot.

By the way, back in the (very) old days, at the professional observatories, it wasn't unknown to expose a photographic plate over several nights! You just have to re-position the scope *exactly* for the subsequent nights before re-opening the shutter.

Dave

#39 tuc

tuc

    Vostok 1

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

Posted 18 January 2011 - 12:37 AM

Yes, Alan Sandage had my dream job.

Thanks, Dave.

#40 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 18 January 2011 - 09:15 AM

Hi Will,
do you remember what format you used to save your images? From what I understand a lot of the stacking programs do not play well with file formats other than Tiff or Fits. If I remember correctly it was mentioned in another post in the DSLR forums that a lot of color info is lost if trying to stack Jpegs. You might want to ask in the DSLR forums.
Just a thought, Bob


Your probably right about that. I think I used .jpg. I have had trouble with my Canon 10d saving other than .jpg formats. I tried raw a few times but it did not help much either. I don't think that camera saves in tiff or fit.

William


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