|
I disagree. Film's not a dead dog yet
<g>. Film still has a competitive niche and even a
competitive advantage at the mid-focal length and widefield level. The
shorter FL instruments necessary to get the larger views with the big
CCD chips are just too small in aperture to match resolution with the
best astrographs used with tech pan film and other excellent high
resolution photographic techniques like mosaics and medium format photography. I
will grant that CCDs will get more bang-for-the-inch in terms of aperture, but
with good instruments film still competes even outdoes a st-10 hooked up to
a Tak FSQ 106 or a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 lens. And all of those CCD
widefield tools are pretty pricey. Of course the "best
astrographs" ain't cheap either <g>. Compare my mid-focal length film
shots with the best equivalent CCD images:
Then you can talk about constellation
photography:
Axel Mellinger or John Gleason has much better
stuff than that. Has CCD even been here yet?
Then go look at the Schmidt camera images by Loke
Tan, John Mirtle, Robert Reeves, Kent Kirkley, et al. And F/1.5 to beat
that!
Everybody's been trying to bury film for about 2
years but we're still seeing some great work on film. Don't jump ship just yet;
not for the widefield stuff anyway!
Bobby Middleton
|