Re: [APML]: Films

["Frank Schiralli, Jr." <schiralli@mindspring.com>]

At 08:22 AM 2/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Hi! I have only used Fugi 800, Kodak PJM, and PPF, but from  my 
>experience I find that PJM and PPF showed more detail on my piggyback 
>photos than the SG800 did in the same amount of time.  It gave a much 
>brighter image of the north american nebula.  I just got some photos back 
>from a couple of nights ago.  Using a 50mm lens at f2.8 with a 8min 
>exposure on PJM, BAnards loop in Orion was very distinct.  

Spilos:

I shot some unhypered PJM last couple of nights and was impressed w/ its
red sensitivity, but the sensitivity in the blue range was not nearly as
good. I used the PJM only because my hand vacuum pump broke, hasn't
returned from repair, and I'm out of hypered PPF.  A 50 min shot of the
Rosette Nebula came out very nicely, but a 45min shot of the Pleiades
showed virtually no dust.  Also, I had great expectations of a 1 hour shot
of M51, and I was not impressed w/ the density of the image.  All were
taken thru a 12" LX200 with a Lumicon GEG in the "F/5" position, and with a
Lumicon deep sky filter. Maybe the combo of PJM and the deep sky filter is
not a good one?


Hypered PPF, OTOH, I find is dynamite in both red and blue.  I much prefer
it. I'm wondering if there was a disparity in the humidity or the
transparency on the two nights...?  I usually shoot film only on the
"better" nights so I don't really think this is it, but I can't be sure.
Maybe I'll have to do simultaneous shot for shot comparison with two
cameras and decide this issue for myself before stocking up on one or the
other.  No doubt someone on APML has done this already.  What was the
consensus?  Also, did the deep sky filter unfairly "punish" the PJM?

Frank Schiralli, Jr.
Member, Astronomical Society of Long Island (ASLI)
N 40* 54' 28"
W 73* 19' 22"