Re: [APML] OT: digital vs film

["Robert Gendler" <robgendler@worldnet.att.net>]

Bill,
In your rush to neagatively respond you completely missed the point.
I'm not saying everyone has the monetary means or should spend the
money required but just that there's no way around spending substantially
if you want to push the envelope. My point was to counter some of the
myth that high level film imaging is any less expensive than high level CCD
imaging. You should be happy with your images. You completely misunderstood
my point. Believe me I'm not elitist. I had nothing growing up. I earned
everything I have the hard way.

Rob Gendler
Email: robgendler@att.net
Web site: http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] OT: digital vs film


> Robert Gendler wrote:
> >
> > Since we are all airing important points I'll make another which
> > I think needs to be made.
> >
> > Underlying some of the "film vs CCD" debate is the topic (myth) of
money.
>
> Not very many of "us" have unlimited sources of funds to finance the
> latest CCD devices Robert. Sorry to burst that bubble for you. But
> someone had too.
>
> > The theme goes like this: Film is the do it yourself poor man's medium
> > and the results reflect on the astrophotographers skills. CCD on the
> > other hand is expensive but somewhat automatic method of making
> > astroimages which requires less skill.
>
> This is unadulterated BS and smacks of elitism Robert. When I was 14
> years old there wasn't a chance that I could afford a Nikon Camera Body,
> or the necessary bits to do the development either.
>
> > Let me dispel this myth.
>
> I'm all ears ....
>
> > It is true that in the early stages film astrophography requires less of
an
> > investment
> > than CCD but it is also absolutely true that to do either at the
"highest"
> > level requires
> > substantial monetary investment in the best possible equipment. There's
no
> > way around
> > this fact of life. Great images cannot be made without the best
telescopes
> > and mounts,
> > cameras and scanners.
>
> You have of course empirical evidence to support this supposition Robert
> ? Have you ever done Astrophotography using film ? You speak very
> knowlegably about the financial resouces necessary to do this and yet
> offer no evidence. What you can certainly attest to is that spending
> money doing CCD imaging is not an issue for you. Good. But unless you
> can offer up some anecdotal evidence regarding film this is still
> unsubstanciated opinion.
>
> >
> > Well respected and beloved film artists such as Tony, Chuck, Bobby and
many
> > others
> > who have consistently produced the best astrophotos out there have all
spent
> > small fortunes
> > financing their hobby. Its not only spent on equipment but lots of money
has
> > been spent on
> > relocating to dark sites. I cannot relocate at this time so I invest in
good
> > equipment to offset
> > the horrible conditions I have here in the NE.
>
> So you are telling us that this is a rich mans game then ??? If so I
> agree. :^)
>
> > Jokes are made about the cost of CCD cameras but I would venture that
Bobby
> > M's BRC
> > cost the same as my RC and "top of the line" scanners cost the same as
CCD
> > cameras.
>
> You would lose that bet ........ And besides Mr. Middleton produces some
> stunning images with a 12.5 Inch Newtonian that probably didn't cost as
> much as the computer that you use to process images.
>
> > The STL11000 cost the same as an astrophysics apo. BTW I traded my ST10
and
> > AO7 to
> > finance the cost of the new camera. Hey how about the cost of all those
home
> > observatories?
>
> $10,000.00 is not necessary to build a reasonable home observatory. And
> let me point out that while you apparently suffer from the delusion that
> everyone on this list uses an Astrophysics Refractor they most assuredly
> do not.
>
> > The second myth is the ease of CCD imaging. I'd be happy to provide a CD
> > with the
> > raw M42 fits files for anyone who wants to take a crack at it. The data
is
> > so contaminated
> > from light pollution it will certainly challenge the processing skills
and
> > frustration level of
> > even the most seasoned imager.
>
> Tell you what Robert ..... I'll fly up to your "digs" and use *your*
> equipment and produce an image. You fly down here to mine and use *my*
> equipment and see for yourself how hard imaging really is. Sheesh ....
>
> With the help of many of the people on this *film* list I have managed
> to produce images that I am very happy with. The total invested in doing
> this was less than the cost of your mount. Period. And to be honest
> Robert your elitism just rubs me the wrong way.
>
> > Enough said.
>
> Ya think ??? <g>
>
>
> My Apologies to the list .....
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bill
> --
> William R. Mattil |
> wrmattil@ix.netcom.com | http://celestial-images.com
> (972) 399-4106 |
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo