42 replies to this topic

[Gregory Gross]

Back in October last year, I wrote this posting and included an image of a Praktina FX SLR camera and my '62 Questar.
 
Fast forward nearly a year and, in a nutshell, I'm ready to start revisiting an old and, as some might say, obsolete medium: film photography. Specifically, I'm all set in terms of having all the necessary gear to do a bit of film imaging of the Moon using my Questar. I have a selection of B/W film (rolls of ISO 25, 100, 200, and 400 film), a functioning camera with a mirror that flips up before the shutter fires, a waist-level finder with the proper ground glass, the necessary couplings, and, of course, my Questar all ready to go.
 
And with the Moon returning to visibility in the days ahead, my intended photographic subject is reappearing.
 
It's been a quarter-century since I did any meaningful work with SLR film camera photography in general (I was in high school at the time and had brief access to a dark room), and my point-and-shoot film camera died on me back in 2002, so I'm very rusty. I have zero experience using a film camera with a Questar.

 

Does anyone who has experience working with film have any general tips for lunar imaging using film that they'd like to share?
 
I am a rank beginner when it comes to this, and I anticipate making lots of mistakes (and having fun with making them) and learning along the way.

[photomagica]

Here a a few tips:

• Focus very carefully. The magnifier in the camera hood is barely adequate to do the job. Use a more powerful magnifier if you can. 
• Shoot many frames and use the clearest ones.
• For the Moon a medium ISO fine-grain film is good. I used to like Plus-X. Tri-X worked well too when I was going for higher magnifications.
• I've also had good results with an ISO 25 film and longer exposures, when the seeing is excellent, which seems to average out the seeing on the good side. Many frames required to get the best possible one.
• D-76 or similar is a very good developer for continuous tone astronomical images. Use D-19 or similar and extra development time for a solid contrast boost if you need to bring up soft planetary detail.
• Start with normal development and then add to the development time if you need more contrast and subtract if you need less.
• Maintain your film wash temperature close to the development temperature. If the wash temperature goes wildly off it can emphasis the grain. This surprised me when I identified it as a problem.
• Today it may be best to go for a bit lower contrast because that can be boosted in software.
• Think about scanning your best frames and stacking in software to increase resolution and average out noise.

 

Please share your results with us.

Bill

Edited by photomagica, 20 August 2020 - 05:44 PM.

[cbwerner]

Gregory,

 

I look forward to seeing your results and evolution in film astrophotography with the Q. Being such a "throwback" instrument in these computerized days, I absolutely love seeing it paired with a Praktika, a classic in its own right.

 

But be patient and pay extra attention to technique at the scope. You are embarking on a real challenge. I pursued it 40 years ago in my teens, and got only a couple of OK images. But, a high level of success is indeed possible.

 

There's a member here (a former moderator actually) named Clownfish. He may have gone digital now and I'm not aware that he posts much any more. All of his film astrophotography is in the Archives at this point, but here's a link to a photo of M42 he took - 45 minutes on unhypered Fuji Provia 400 slide film. Holy moses!!! Use that as inspiration.

[Gregory Gross]

The problem I need to overcome in the immediate term is how to decide on shutter speed. For photography, my Questar operates at a focal length of 49 inches at f/14 and, with extension tubes, I imagine, 56 inches at f/16. I was going to use my camera closely coupled without extension tubes -- that is, my focal ratio would be f/14. I need to figure out what shutter speed is optical for a given phase of the Moon at that focal ratio.

 

With the film I have on hand -- again, ISO 25, 100, 200, and 400 -- my game plan is to shoot a number of exposures across a wide range of exposures.

 

There is a nice discussion of lunar photography entitled "How To Photograph The Moon" that says, "film shooters should shoot film of 100 ISO or slower to eliminate noise and grain." Shooting between f/11 and f/16 is best. And as far as shutter speed is concerned, "the variables are many and include those mentioned earlier, such as the phase the moon is in, geographical location and desired shot, but on a clear night starting at about 1/60th to 1/125th should be a great starting point."

 

I'm thinking about waiting until Sunday night, when the Moon will be about 30% illuminated. I'm thinking that my roll of ISO 400 film may be too fast for my purposes, but I wanted to try it out nonetheless. I'll shoot up that entire roll then. The next night, I'd move to the ISO 200 role, and so on.

 

The Looney 11 Rule, discussed here and here, may also be useful.

 

Up to this point, my only experience doing lunar imaging has been to point a camera (either a cell phone camera or a point-and-shoot camera) into an eyepiece and let the device choose the exposure. Having to do this manually for the first time shows me how much technology has been doing for me thus far.

[cbwerner]

Gregory,

 

Just burn a roll or two bracketing exposures to find the sweet spot. Film is cheap, at least to me.

 

And trust me on this - focusing is the challenge. It always is, but more so with film. Anything you can do to hone in on that, do it.

[LorenBall]

I have done what you are attempting to do, Gregory. But it has been quite a while. Decades.

One problem you are going to have is finding someone who can properly develop your lunar exposures.

It is going to be a problem, because the commercial folks are not accustomed to what you are imaging. They expect to see puppies and children in daylight conditions.

I wound up developing my own stuff. You may have to do that too.   GL

[Gregory Gross]

Here a a few tips:

• Focus very carefully. The magnifier in the camera hood is barely adequate to do the job. Use a more powerful magnifier if you can. 
• Shoot many frames and use the clearest ones.

And trust me on this - focusing is the challenge. It always is, but more so with film. Anything you can do to hone in on that, do it.

I found that focusing with the split image ground glass and pentaprism was far more difficult than with the waist level finder with magnifying glass. But I will definitely focus on my focus. 

 

One problem you are going to have is finding someone who can properly develop your lunar exposures.

It is going to be a problem, because the commercial folks are not accustomed to what you are imaging. They expect to see puppies and children in daylight conditions.

I wound up developing my own stuff. You may have to do that too.   GL

On one hand, I was surprised to learn how many businesses still do film developing, albeit as online businesses. Still, the fact they’re out there coupled with what I understand to be a resurgence of interest in film especially amount younger folks is reassuring. But I will certainly find out how well my photos end up being processed. I’m not sure I have the resources or the space for a darkroom. Though where’s a will there’s a way: it not too long ago that I thought I’d never have a luxury item like a Questar.

[cbwerner]

Didn't know you have a waist level viewfinder - those are the bomb!

 

And if you're interested, you can still get the stuff to develop your own film and have total control. It's not expensive, just more time and acquired skills. I'm a sick puppy - I totally miss the smell of fixer. So many happy memories of that. 

[Terra Nova]

I found that focusing with the split image ground glass and pentaprism was far more difficult than with the waist level finder with magnifying glass. But I will definitely focus on my focus. 

 

On one hand, I was surprised to learn how many businesses still do film developing, albeit as online businesses. Still, the fact they’re out there coupled with what I understand to be a resurgence of interest in film especially amount younger folks is reassuring. But I will certainly find out how well my photos end up being processed. I’m not sure I have the resources or the space for a darkroom. Though where’s a will there’s a way: it not too long ago that I thought I’d never have a luxury item like a Questar.

I used to develop my own film many years ago. Black and white is really pretty easy. And it doesn’t take a lot of room. Your main requisite is running water and counter space. Kitchen’s don’t work well because they generally have too many windows and sometimes no door but simply an open doorway to the rest of the house so light becomes a huge problem. I found laundry rooms work really well. I laid a large plywood board across the washer and dryer for a counter, used the laundry sink for running water and put tinfoil over the one window. Later I had a basement laundry room and that was nice and dark. Plus laundry rooms have plenty of shelf and cabinet space for storing chemicals, trays, film developing tanks, contact frames and enlarger. You’re in for a lot of fun!

[Sacred Heart]

Focusing,  I do not know if this will work,   can you not parfocal an eyepiece to your camera??  I did that when I went for a shuttle launch.  The other way I was thinking was to set focus to a DSLR then connect the film camera.  The focal point would have to be the same for both cameras though.  The chip and film would have to be the same distance away plus the difference in size of the film negative and imaging chip.   Eyepiece method may be easier.

             Joe Kuhl

[Gregory Gross]

Perhaps true to the nature of an older medium, I finally have some thoughts to share after a fair amount of time has passed between my receipt of various roles of film and the point at which I could actually look at the results. If anything, this has definitely been an exercise in mustering patience, and it's been a reminder of why film saw itself being superseded by digital photography.

First, here's my setup: a Praktina FX camera body attached to my 1962 Questar #2-14xx:
 



Having a waist level finder was invaluable for achieving (or trying to achieve) focus when the camera was attached to the scope.
 


 



I started out with four rolls of film of various ISO speeds: Kentmere 400, Fomapan 200, Fomapan 100, and Rollei RPX 25, all ordered from Blue Moon Camera and Machine in Portland, Oregon.

To make a long story short, I exposed all four rolls shooting various subjects both day and night at various shutter speeds. My objective at this point was to get a feel for each ISO and what exposures were best under what conditions. I kept careful notes of each exposure (equipment used, subject, light conditions, etc.).

Much to my dismay, I ended up losing my role of ISO 100 film. I was just finishing up the roll of film, and I tried to advance it to the next frame. But as I did so, I suddenly felt a bit of give in the resistance to turning the film advance knob, and then I heard film flapping about inside the camera. The film tore right off of its spool inside the canister. At first, my mind searched for a solution, but I realized that there was no getting the film back into the canister, so I simply popped the camera body open and saw my now ruined roll detached from its canister. Bummer.

Since this was my very first time that I ran film through this camera, I wanted to see if there were any light leaks, so I opted simply to get the film developed without getting any prints made. A neighbor of mine happens to have a film scanner that he lent me, and using that device save me a fairly substantial chunk of money in terms of having to get prints made. Besides, I simply needed to see how my exposures turned out.

I'm really glad that I avoided getting those prints done, because I found that most of my photos were badly underexposed. Looking back at my notes, I see that I tended towards 1/100th-second exposures and faster when I should have been tending more towards 1/10th- or 1/25th-second exposures.

Focus was also quite a challenge. My waist level finder worked great when the camera was attached to my Questar and aimed at the Moon, but my lunar photos still turned out disappointingly fuzzy. Seeing that gave me a newfound respect for the lunar astrophotography work of the Davises that Questar used in its advertising all those years. For daytime work, I found that I needed a split-screen finder when using the camera with its own lens. I actually do have another Praktina FX with a non-functional shutter, split-screen finder, and pentaprism, but at the time I was too lazy to switch out parts between my non-functional and functional Praktinas.

Here are the best two lunar photographs I was able to get. I had my Praktina FX closely coupled with my Questar (no extension tubes). Both photos are unaltered except for cropping and file size reduction.

Kentmere 400, 1/50th sec exposure, August 23, 2020, 8:30 pm:
 



Fomapan 200, 1/25th sec exposure, August 24, 2020, 8:37 pm:
 



Both nights, there was some smoke haze in the sky from wildfires in the region.

I'm fortunate to have another Questar, #2-15xx, which went through a wide-field conversion at some point in its life as has that larger-diameter axial port. My #2-14xx has its original narrow-field construction and smaller axial port intact. Here's a comparison of the two. Both photos were taken with Kentmere 400 at 1/500th second exposure.

First, #2-14xx and its narrow-field construction:
 


 
And #2-15xx and its wide-field construction (and failed coatings, which may explain the somewhat darker appearance):




Note how much vignetting is going on with the older narrow-field standard. I now have a better understanding of why Questar brought about the wide-field construction in 1964.

One of the more exciting moments of my experimentation was when I was using my scope and camera to capture this nearby bush. I noticed a hummingbird fly around and managed to capture several exposures at various speeds when its perched itself and settled down. Here is the best photo, heavily doctored because it was the least underexposed of the photos I took all of which were badly underexposed:
 


 
I happened to have my cell phone on hand, and I snapped this photo with its camera aimed into my waist-level finder:




The hummingbird was maybe 40 feet away or so.

The irony is not lost on me that I got my best hummingbird photo my aiming a cell phone camera into the finder of my film camera while it was attached to my Questar.

Lessons learned: I'm wondering to myself whether I want to continue down the film route. Clearly, I need to work on my focusing. I need to make my exposures using a slower shutter speed. And the interminable wait between making exposures, sending the film off for processing, and waiting some more to get my negatives back, not to mention having to pay for processing when I know that digital is immediate and free (once you have the camera, of course) are all factors that, frankly, put me off a bit.

As Terra noted, I could invest in my own film developing setup and use something like my neighbor's film scanner.

But I'm tending towards loosening the purse strings and getting that Canon M200 mirrorless camera I've wanted for a while. Now that I have at least some experience with film, I may branch out and trying out the digital route with my Questar, which I've never done because of a lack of a proper camera with removable lens.

[photomagica]

Try holding the sell phone up to the Questar lens - or better getting a bracket to hold the phone in place and exactly center the phone's lens over the eyepiece. I think you may be amazed and delighted by what you get. As you found - cell phone cameras are pretty amazing these days.

Bill

[cbwerner]

The irony is not lost on me that I got my best hummingbird photo my aiming a cell phone camera into the finder of my film camera while it was attached to my Questar.

Lessons learned: I'm wondering to myself whether I want to continue down the film route. Clearly, I need to work on my focusing. I need to make my exposures using a slower shutter speed. And the interminable wait between making exposures, sending the film off for processing, and waiting some more to get my negatives back, not to mention having to pay for processing when I know that digital is immediate and free (once you have the camera, of course) are all factors that, frankly, put me off a bit.

As Terra noted, I could invest in my own film developing setup and use something like my neighbor's film scanner.

But I'm tending towards loosening the purse strings and getting that Canon M200 mirrorless camera I've wanted for a while. Now that I have at least some experience with film, I may branch out and trying out the digital route with my Questar, which I've never done because of a lack of a proper camera with removable lens.

That's the tough thing about film. One chance, one shot. If you pursue film there's going to have to be a component of you just want to be retro. If you're doing it for cost reasons, just buy digital used. I've got a digital camera from 9 years ago that will kick butt on film even though it's completely outdated by current technology.

 

But in order for it to kick butt, you have to get more software, learn about HDR, stacking, etc., etc., etc..

 

Film is fun. (I'll say it again - I love, positively love, the smell of fixer. Call me an addict, but it's the love of happy memories.  ).

 

Digital is complicated. But there are many reasons the world has gone heavily that way.

[Sacred Heart]

Gregory,  Question on those moon shots,   was the solar filter for the finder scope closed over the hole by the mirror?? I make sure the finder hole is covered so no stray light enters into the viewing area. 

              Joe Kuhl

[photomagica]

Gregory,

You have done an excellent first set of tests with film and learned a great deal. I appreciate what you have accomplished. Don't feel too bad about the loss of the ISO 100 film, it would likely not have given results much different from the 200. Next time you pull a roll off the spool, go into a very dark closet, carefully take the film out and put it in an opaque container - send this to the lab with a warning to open it in the dark.

 

In my earlier advice I should have mentioned bracketing exposures over a wide range. With B&W film it is fine to bracket at 2 stop intervals to get a good range without using too many frames. Since you are using a lab, consider suing Ilford XP-2 film it is a B&W film that is processed in color chemistry so any one-hour mini-lab can process it.

 

Focusing is indeed a challenge with film SLRs. One dodge is to use a clear glass focusing screen or one with a clear center. A strip of thin opaque tape is placed on the focusing screen and used as a knife edge, Foucault test style, to establish when the camera is at focus, using a fairly bright star as the light source. This is fiddly but works. It may be simpler to find a higher power magnifier, something the range of 20x that will fit into the hood. I'd see what is on E-bay. I did some tests with a 4x5 camera set up with a dial indicator and found it was not possible to achieve truly consistent, critical focus on the ground glass with less than 20x magnification. This why SLRs went to prisms and micro-prisms - ground glass with a magnifier is not a very good way to focus at magnifications that let you see the whole field of view, or most of it. When I was doing astrophotography with a film Nikon, I'd take the prism off and use a 20x hand magnifier to focus on the viewing screen. Fiddly but it worked well. If you can hold the magnifier in place on or above the viewing screen, that would make it less fiddly.

 

Don't get discouraged, you are well up the learning curve and on your way to getting result you will find much more satisfactory.

Bill

[Gregory Gross]

Thanks very much for everyone's thoughts!

 

If you pursue film there's going to have to be a component of you just want to be retro.

That was definitely the appeal of using film... and of maximizing the retro nature of using an old Questar with an old film camera. There was a simplicity to it that was fun in an of itself. I think that, if I were to pursue this (and that possibility is still in play), I'd probably combine the retro thing with more modern gear--that is, get some gear for developing the film on my own and a film scanner. I found that the cost of getting prints made is a bit more than I'm willing to put into my hobby, and getting darkroom equipment is both expensive and onerous.

 

Gregory,  Question on those moon shots,   was the solar filter for the finder scope closed over the hole by the mirror?? I make sure the finder hole is covered so no stray light enters into the viewing area. 

              Joe Kuhl

Since this is a 1962 Questar that I have (bought purposefully with a liking for the early Questars), it doesn't have a solar filter for the finder. Still, it didn't occur to me that moonlight was getting reflected up into the control box from the finder mirror.

 

Don't get discouraged, you are well up the learning curve and on your way to getting result you will find much more satisfactory.

Thanks for the encouragement, Bill! I'll use your advice on my next attempt.

[Ring_Singularity]

I consider mirrorless M43 and larger sensors to be superior to DSLR, especially in terms of weight and the ability to take lots of photos quickly, I can do 8 fps until my 32 GB card is full with the fully electronic shutter- which makes it really good for birding too.  No shutter sound is great for not scaring off wildlife.

[ETXer]

Gregory, excellent... this is an inspiration to try this again as well; a while back I did some film lunar photography with my C8 at both prime focus and eyepiece projection with a Yashica TL-Electro (am M42 mount body). They turned out ok, but again, focusing could have been better. I now have a Nikon F that I can focus using the ground glass and I'll just try it with my Q (a '65) using the tabletop legs.

 

Cheers, Allan

Edited by ETXer, 23 September 2020 - 06:24 PM.

[Gregory Gross]

Allan, I'm interested to learn more about your Nikon F. I don't suppose it is a Questar-modified one?

 

A quick internet search revealed this and this example from a Nikon collector's stock of cameras, this writeup on Pacific Rim Camera's website, and this old listing on Astromart for a Q-modified Nikon F.

 

Excellent Flickr photostream, by the way. You do some phenomenal work with film.

[ETXer]

Allan, I'm interested to learn more about your Nikon F. I don't suppose it is a Questar-modified one?

 

A quick internet search revealed this and this example from a Nikon collector's stock of cameras, this writeup on Pacific Rim Camera's website, and this old listing on Astromart for a Q-modified Nikon F.

 

Excellent Flickr photostream, by the way. You do some phenomenal work with film.

 

Thanks Gregory! And thanks for the links, very interesting, I didn't even know about this... I actually have two F bodies and neither are modified. I just obtained these this past spring just to get to know the mystique surrounding these cameras. It wasn't until I saw your post that I realized this is the only 35mm camera I possess with a removable prism and will easily lend itself to this.

 

I don't have a T-adapter yet for this camera yet (I do for M42 and Pentax K) and I also need to make an inventory of what parts I have, to make sure I can connect my Q (a '65 with the small rear port) to a 35mm body. Incidentally, I do have those required components for the ETX and C8, but I really would like to try this with the Q.

 

And as an aside, (and I understand this is the Questar forum, but it's film-related ) here are the shots (from 2015) with TMax 400, my C8, and my Yashica TL-Electro:

 

Prime focus:

 

 

And eyepiece projection through a 26mm Plossl:

 

 

 

 

Focus was somewhat acceptable in the prime focus shot, but was quite difficult with eyepiece projection, especially through the camera's normal viewfinder.

 

Cheers, Allan

Edited by ETXer, 23 September 2020 - 07:40 PM.

[Gregory Gross]

Excellent lunar images, Allan! I aspire to achieve that quality in my work.

 

I've love to see what you can do with your Nikon F attached to your '65 Q -- be sure to post whatever photos you make with this combo here!

[ETXer]

Thanks Greg! I checked, and all I need now is the Nikon F T-adapter and the waist-level finder, I already have all the other components. I'll be sure to put something up as soon as it all comes together.

 

And keep up the great work!

[ETXer]

Well, while being busy with Mars observations and imaging attempts, I finally got around to getting a film shot of the moon with the Q3.5 yesterday morning for Last Quarter. It was quite high at 75 degrees which even with a right-angle (waist-level) finder on the camera body, it was a little awkward. Here's the setup:

 

 

The camera was my old trusty Nikon F with a waist-level finder and cable release, and the original Questar dew shield counterweight.

 

Film was Kodak 400TMax processed in HC-110B, scanned using an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner with minor PS Elements adjustments. The exposure was 1/60 second with the mirror lockup feature enabled.

 

 

Cheers, Allan

Edited by ETXer, 10 October 2020 - 12:12 PM.

[Gregory Gross]

Very nice, Allan! Thanks so much for sharing! I see you acquired a Nikon F T-adapter and waist-level finder.

[ETXer]

Very nice, Allan! Thanks so much for sharing! I see you acquired a Nikon F T-adapter and waist-level finder.

Thank you Greg! Yes, I was able to get the rest of the items I needed; I debated between the waist-level finder (which has a 5x magnifier) vs. the Nikon 6x right-angle finder. I figured I could use the WL finder for other uses and the magnification difference wouldn’t be really noticeable. I was glad I could get it all together just in time for the Last Quarter phase!

 

Cheers, Allan