RE: [APML] OT: digital vs film

Hi,

Don't completely give up on film yet <g>. IMHO there are still certain objects/camera combinations which are still better done on film. But each year the gap is closing fast. One example situation is the use of a Schmidt camera with medium format TP and tricolor. My guess, (yet to be proven) is that the ST11000 will achieve or exceed the quality of a Schmidt camera (8" F/1.5) and 35mm Tech Pan tricolor combination. The key is the use of medium format TP but not many folks have such a Schmidt camera wich can illuminate medium format. There are still some medium format TP LRGB work such as those by Bobby which I think can rival and even sometimes exceed the resolution of a CCD. The results will certainly be very dependent certain parameters such as the pixel size of the CCD.

Another interesting thing which might happen is when the next large/bright comet comes our way. I am curious to see if the best widefield images will be shot on CCD or on a Schmidt Camera with TP. The interesting matter here is that a large comet changes quite rapidly and the f/1.5 speed of the Schmidt really helps to shorten exposures for TP. Unfortunately CCDs will not be able to be used in a Schmidt unless you can curve the chip. But the CCD is more sensitive than hypered TP, so this will make a very interesting comparison. Anyway, these are my current thoughts on the subject.

Loke

-----Original Message-----
From: astro-photo-bounces@seds.org [mailto:astro-photo-bounces@seds.org]On Behalf Of Tony Hallas
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:15 PM
To: Discussion of Film Astrophotography
Subject: Re: [APML] OT: digital vs film

Oh boy,

    Let's not start THIS again ... those of us who know better know that the boundaries between film and digital are starting to blur more and more with each passing day ... you may shoot film, but I bet you use some form of digital post processing ... where do you draw the line? You can use film to start with and use digital to process, or you can shoot digital and use dedicated film-type processing like Photoshop as the post processing ... the lines merge, black and white is turning gray ...

     The best thing that can be said for Rob's images is that he aspires to make them as photorealistic as possible ... that's why he should stay on this list... I have seen CCD originated images that look more "film like" than some convoluted attempts starting with film and trying to make them look digital ...

     Those of us who come from a solid film background and who have been on this list for awhile have an edge on our "CCD only" compatriots ... ultimately the techniques that come to bear in making a great photo must be used even if the image had its beginnings as a CCD receptor ... speaking from my own experience, about 20% of a CCD image that I make borrows from pure CCD technology ... the rest is all film.

          Tony