Re: [APML] New Horsehead - an interesting comparison?

[Philip Perkins <philip@astrocruise.com>]

Tony et al,

That GPY (PPF) is kaput, there's no doubt about it.  I just went back to 
the original unenhanced composite stack and there is nothing there.  It's 
dull and muddy.  I compared it to my refractor shot on fresh stock and it's 
vibrant by comparison.  At the time I was doing the processing I put it 
down to under exposure.  But it's a lot more than that.  The film is just 
not recording the way it used to.  There was also a magenta cast as it came 
out of the scanner.  I am not sure if that applies just to the older batch 
that I used in December or whether all of my remaining stock is kaput 
too.  I may need to find some new 120 film in a hurry.

I can still do a film crop of just the Horsehead region (to compare with 
the CCD shot) but I'm almost afraid to do it because the film version looks 
so poor by comparison.  Undoubtedly it's due to very outdated film (end 
dated 1999) so I am not sure it's a valid comparison.  It might be more 
meaningful to compare it to the shot on fresh stock to show what can happen 
to outdated film.  BTW the film started off in the freezer for a year but 
for the past two years it's been stored in a fridge at about +2 C.  It's a 
small fridge I bought especially for storing film.

--Philip


At 14:03 20/01/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Philip,
>
>    My vote goes for the CCD Horse... phenomenal detail and density 
> penetration... I can see detail right down the mane of the horse. The 
> film version does have more field, but so what?
>The image looks muddy in comparison. I find the CCD image fascinating 
>because you have shown us detail in color that I would reserve for only 
>the best TP shots with huge scopes.
>That's amazing. And you have only just begun the CCD "trip" in comparison 
>to your lengthy experience with film. I think rather than focus on the 
>BEGINNING of the image, we need to think about the END of the image when 
>we speak of "photographic" quality... although my new M42 was shot on 
>film, every other part of it is DIGITAL....so maybe the APML should have 
>members who specialize in making the end product of their imaging 
>photographic in appearence... and leave the CCD lists to the techno dweebs 
>who are only fascinated with numbers and not art.
>
>       Tony

Philip Perkins - philip@astrocruise.com
Wiltshire UK & Luberon France
Astrocruise - http://www.astrocruise.com


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>