15 replies to this topic

[Achernar]

While most who were photographing the recent eclipse with DSLR's or other digital cameras, I only had my old Nikon F3-HP available so I pressed it into service and successfully photographed the eclipsed moon. During totality, I had no idea of what exposure time to use at F/10, so I bracketed and took shots with exposure times up to 60 seconds. I used Fujicolor Xtra 400 speed color print film which was processed at a local lab, then scanned into my computer. The telescope was a 8-inch Celestron EdgeHD on an AVX mount. The results I got were better than I dared hope, I never took long exposure photos through this telescope that succeeded before.

 

Taras

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Achernar, 23 January 2019 - 08:17 PM.

[Todd N]

Great shot. I admit, I pussed out and image the Blood Red Moon with my DSLR even though I considered film. I regret I didn't use my C8 like you did for that image scale. "Astrophotography for the Amateur" by Michael Covington has exposure tables for such, really useful to have on hand.

 

Regards,

 

Todd

[GlenM]

Excellent colour depth.

 

Glen.

[jwheel]

Nice shot!

[GaryS]

While most who were photographing the recent eclipse with DSLR's or other digital cameras, I only had my old Nikon F3-HP available so I pressed it into service and successfully photographed the eclipsed moon. During totality, I had no idea of what exposure time to use at F/10, so I bracketed and took shots with exposure times up to 60 seconds. I used Fujicolor Xtra 400 speed color print film which was processed at a local lab, then scanned into my computer. The telescope was a 8-inch Celestron EdgeHD on an AVX mount. The results I got were better than I dared hope, I never took long exposure photos through this telescope that succeeded before.

 

Taras

Nice shot!

 

I used Ektar 100 for the eclipse, and like you had to take a WAG on the exposure. I had a decent idea what it *should* be, but not knowing the reciprocity characteristics of Ektar, I wasn't sure how long to go. Luckily, film (even Ektar 100) has tremendous exposure latitude, so the consequences of guessing wrong aren't severe.

 

Regards,

Gary

[Achernar]

Nice shot!

 

I used Ektar 100 for the eclipse, and like you had to take a WAG on the exposure. I had a decent idea what it *should* be, but not knowing the reciprocity characteristics of Ektar, I wasn't sure how long to go. Luckily, film (even Ektar 100) has tremendous exposure latitude, so the consequences of guessing wrong aren't severe.

 

Regards,

Gary

How did your photos turn our?

 

Taras

[GaryS]

How did your photos turn our?

 

Taras

Good--I'm pleased. (You can see one of my shots on my FilmAdvance.com web site--I probably should have mentioned that.)

 

I also shot digital and it made for an interesting comparison. Digital is much easier in every way, but that's not to say you can't get good results with film--as your image shows.

 

Regards,

Gary

[telesonic]

Nicely done Taras!

 

I was hoping someone here would be using film to capture this event, our forecast was horrible that day - so I didn't even give it a thought. 

 

Glad to see a shot of it, (and also Gary's) thanks for posting up here. 

 

T

[TxStars]

I shot some slides, but have not had time to process them.

[shiaki_astro]

This is truly a nice shot!

[Alen K]

Nothing wrong with that one!

[canondslr]

Very nice and clear image Taras! I was curious what the focal length was for your shot?

 

I gave the New  35mm Ektachrome a try with an 80mm refractor. Equivalent to a 480mm lens. Now I'm wishing I had used a barlow lens since the moon was quite small in the frame. I definitely plan to use this film some more.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Achernar]

Very nice and clear image Taras! I was curious what the focal length was for your shot?

 

I gave the New  35mm Ektachrome a try with an 80mm refractor. Equivalent to a 480mm lens. Now I'm wishing I had used a barlow lens since the moon was quite small in the frame. I definitely plan to use this film some more.

I took mine at prime focus, and because I used an 8-inch SCT without a focal reducer, the focal length was 2,000mm. The moon was about three quarters of an inch across on the film and fit quite nicely on a frame of 35mm film. It looks like your photos turned our very well too.

 

Taras

Edited by Achernar, 09 March 2019 - 09:12 AM.

[canondslr]

Nice! That extra focal length worked great! I really like the clairty of your image at 2,000mm.  Now I wish I had used my 4x Barlow. That would have bumped it up to 1920mm. The images I took at 480mm dont hold up nearly as well when enlarged. Great job!

 

 Tom

[Achernar]

Nice! That extra focal length worked great! I really like the clairty of your image at 2,000mm.  Now I wish I had used my 4x Barlow. That would have bumped it up to 1920mm. The images I took at 480mm dont hold up nearly as well when enlarged. Great job!

 

 Tom

 

You could have done that, but your exposure times would have been very long, especially with film. I must have hit it out of the park on the focus and polar alignment, because I had prints made off the negative for this photo. I could see clearly that the lunar limb is jagged.

 

Taras

[canondslr]

I had forgotten about the lengthy exposure adjustment required with the 4x Barlow lens! With a normal full moon, the increase isn't  a problem, but at full eclipse, 6 seconds could have increased to well over a minute! My current setup would have definitely struggled with such a long exposure at 1920mm. 

 

 

Yes, you definitely hit a home run. Nice to have that happen when it counts the most! 

 

Tom