[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] 400F (was: Alternative Anti-Vignetting Photoshop Technique)
In the responses below I am confused. Is Provia good or bad? Below is an opinion
that is must be bad. Below that message are message extolling its virtues. Come on
guys......what message should I take away?
glenn shaw
stephen pitt wrote:
> Provia sucks...evenly. You know what that means, don't you? We're not alone
> any more. Stephen Pitt
>
> John Boudreau wrote:
>
> > > Is 400F the best slide film for galaxies currently available? Sorry, I
> > > haven't been following this thread from the beginning.
> > >
> > > Ulrich
> >
> > Hi Ulrich.
> > The "Provia 400F for galaxies" comment you're recalling was most probably
> > made by me. I've been shooting it since February of last year, and find it
> > to be the best overall UNHYPERED color film for galaxies I've yet tried.
> > It's unhypered blue response is much better than E200. BTW --- I have also
> > used E200 with success on galaxies, but overall the color balance of 400F is
> > much better than E200, IMO. Provia 400F also shines for objects other than
> > galaxies as both Jon Kolb and Matt BenDaniel have shown recently, and it's
> > super fine grain stablemate, 100F, is THE BEST color film to shoot the
> > smaller, very high surface brightness planetary nebula.
> >
> > Some 400F galaxies:
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/jeboud/m51.htm
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/jeboud/m82.htm
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/jeboud/m87.htm
> >
> > Some E200 galaxies:
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/jeboud/m65_m66.htm
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/jeboud/m81.htm
> >
> > I should note that the blues in the E200 shots were stretched quite a lot in
> > Photoshop. And what may seem like inconsistent exposure times are mostly due
> > to nasty New England clouds sneaking up on me at times <g>.
> >
> > While I'm on the subject, having read other's comments and questions on 400F
> > today, I should add that:
> >
> > 1. The 400F doesn't have the red sensitivity of E200, but IMO E200 is *too*
> > sensitive to reds, compared to it's response to other colors. Of course, for
> > the faintest red nebula, this is a plus for E200. But for many subjects, I
> > think the color balance of 400F is much better than E200. Matt's recent M42
> > is an outstanding example:
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/mbendaniel1/gallery/astro/sword.html
> >
> > 2. 400F has much finer grain than any 400 class color negative film I can
> > think of, but is not quite as fine grained as E200, but reasonably close.
> >
> > 3. I tend to agree with Marco's statement that 400F acts a bit slower than
> > ISO 400 in practice. Some local pro photographers have mentioned to me that
> > they think this is so also. But they still love it :o)
> >
> > 4. I have hypered a roll for 2 hrs, 50 degrees C at +3 psi (hand pump
> > vacuum). Unfortunately the skies didn't cooperate that night as haze and
> > later fog showed up, but what I *can* say is that there was no strong color
> > shift, but blues may have been hurt somewhat, reds appeared _very_ slightly
> > stronger. The overall differences were slight, and this really needs more
> > testing. I think a very short hyper of an hour or even a bit less may help
> > just might be a good thing for overall sensitivity. But with this film's
> > fine unhypered reciprocity characteristics, I'll probably stick to using it
> > unhypered. I have not pushed it, but I have seen a NGC 7000 shot from
> > another APML member that was pushed 2 or 3x that looked pretty good.
> >
> > 5. Even though I have applauded 400F's blue response, It's certainly no
> > hypered RG200 in that regard. But I think it's the best overall unhypered
> > astro film, however E200 may still be preferred by some for the very
> > faintest red subjects.
> >
> > John Boudreau
> > jeboud@mediaone.net
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/jeboud/astro.htm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ulrich Beinert <analemma@gmx.de>
> > To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:54 PM
> > Subject: AW: [APML] 400F (was: Alternative Anti-Vignetting Photoshop
> > Technique)
> >
> > > Is 400F the best slide film for galaxies currently available? Sorry, I
> > > haven't been following this thread from the beginning.
> > >
> > > Ulrich
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: owner-astro-photo@seds.org [mailto:owner-astro-photo@seds.org]Im
> > > Auftrag von Herm
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Januar 2002 18:50
> > > An: astro-photo@seds.org
> > > Betreff: Re: [APML] 400F (was: Alternative Anti-Vignetting Photoshop
> > > Technique)
> > >
> > >
> > > Matt, I dont like using E200 for galaxy shots, it just does not work
> > well..
> > > on
> > > the other hand its excellent for red stuff..
> > >
> > > Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I think E200 is good for subjects that don't
> > > >have a lot of red in them, like reflection nebulae and galaxies. E200
> > > >is good for recording faint red nebulosity and for short exposures of
> > > >red nebulae
> > >
> > > Herm
> > > Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez
> > >
> > > -- 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>
> > >
> >
> > -- 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>
-- APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/> ---
Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>