[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] 400F (was: Alternative Anti-Vignetting PhotoshopTechnique)
Stephen-
Aound these parts (the western hemisphere) "sucks" is slang for bad, not
good, and disaproval <g>
Sean Walker
> From: stephen pitt <lthuedk@pe.net>
> Reply-To: astro-photo@seds.org
> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:00:00 -0800
> To: astro-photo@seds.org
> Subject: Re: [APML] 400F (was: Alternative Anti-Vignetting Photoshop
> Technique)
>
> Hi Bert:
>
> Sorry for stating my very highest praise for a film in such terms. There is
> nothing I dislike about P400F, except the price. P400F can record changes in
> colour temperature that push the limit of the words subtle and distinct.
> Strong
> secondary and tertiary hues are recorded, opening new doors of exploration.
>
> Provia 400F will keep me and my kind in emulsion a bit longer. It will play
> as
> a real contributing layer with other films. Its those colours that can be
> found.
>
> After a year of using P400F, I logged in here and discovered John Boudreau as
> the sole user of this unique film. Amazing, thats all.
>
> Stephen Pitt
>
>
>
> Bert Katzung wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Stephen, this is one of the more baffling postings I've seen on APML.
>> I assume the first sentence means you hate this film. Could you tell us why?
>> And I have no idea at all what the last sentence means. Is it an in joke
>> with someone on the list? Please let us in on it....
>> Bert
>>
>> Bert Katzung
>> katzung1@attbi.com
>> www.astronomy-images.com
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "stephen pitt" <lthuedk@pe.net>
>> To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [APML] 400F (was: Alternative Anti-Vignetting Photoshop
>> Technique)
>>
>> 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>
>
>
>
>
> -- 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>