Re: [APML] Viel exposure question...

["Jeff Crilly" <jlcapml@sbcglobal.net>]

Thanks for the info.. 

I'm off to a fairly dark sky site...

http://cleardarksky.com/lp/Lassen_National_Parklp.html

(Unfortunately, the clearskyclock isnt looking too good 
for this weekend... I shoulda been there thursday night.)

Anyhow, if I get a chance at the darksky site, I'll go longer.
My normal darkish-but-close site is in the yellow, but frequently
gets low light-supressing fog in the summer.
http://cleardarksky.com/lp/Fremont_CAlp.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Westergren" <westergren@netzero.net>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] Viel exposure question...


> Jeff,
> 
> E200 and Provia400 have very similar light sensitivity and reciprocity.  See
> my data at http://home.nethere.net/mpd/FilmTestData/FilmTestData.htm
> 
> Plus 2 processing will give you one honest stop of red sensitivity out to
> 4-1/2 hours exposure for 35 mm, a little less for 120 film.  I shoot 35mm
> Provia400 with my FSQ106 for one hour.  Longer than that and I start seeing
> sky fog from dark skies at Mt Laguna CA.  You will see brightness fall-off
> toward the edges of your picture, so stay away from sky fog.
> 
> Clear Skies,
> Don
> 
> >
> > I'm trying to shoot the whole veil on 6x7 film.
> > (This is using the FSQ-106 @f5, so the FOV is fairly
> > wide..
> > I dont have the exact numbers handy, but it easily
> > covers
> > the whole area twice.  By "area", I mean the
> > waterfall,
> > witches-broom, and the brighter, thinner, nebula to
> > the
> > south.)
> >
> > So I tried 20min-40min exposures of provia400F with
> > std processing, from a fairly dark location, but not
> > incredibly dark.  (btw, I'm not using LPR filters).
> > Some detail, but not much on the fainter parts of the
> > nebula.
> >
> > I'm thinking of trying E200.  Iirc, E200 suffers from
> > less
> > reciprocity failure.  Is this correct?
> >
> > In addition, I may need darker skies, with less
> > skyglow, and expose
> > for, say 60 minutes, then push+2.
> >
> > Does this make sense?  Or do I just have wishful
> > thinking
> > that I can get a decent image of this on film?
> >
> > jeff
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo