Re: [APML] Re: Supra 400, was: new films

["bert katzung" <katzung1@home.com>]

Hi Tony:
I see what you mean, but I interpreted the fall-off to the amount of
stretching I did in Photoshop. Of course the two are connected---if the film
was more sensitive in the shadow areas, it wouldn't need so much stretching.
I'll get back my Centuria 800 results tomorrow: M8 and M31, and it'll be
interesting to see how that compares. Dickinson was sure strong on it when
he reviewed it last September. Cloudy down here in the Bay Area tonight
also.
Bert

Bert Katzung
katzung1@home.com
www.astronomy-images.com


----- Original Message -----
From: <Tonyhallas@aol.com>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Thursday, 23 August, 2001 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] Re: Supra 400, was: new films


> Bert,
>
>     I opened your M-8/20 image and I see exactly the thing that I am
turned
> off about Supra 400.... there is an abrupt drop-off in tonality and
recorded
> information when you get to the last 25% of shadow detail. This is really
> obvious in your image. Look at the edges of M-8, all you recorded was the
> bright area. In my test of M-31, the nucleus showed up but the arms were
> missing... this is why M-31 is such a great test subject matter...  it is
> merciless on film performance. But I will try the Supra test again with
> hypered film... just to make sure.
>
>      Tony
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>