Re: [APML] Moon comparison with 3 films: eclipse prep

["Chris Schur" <cschur@cybertrails.com>]

Jeff, I like the Provia version best too.  the digital looks flat.

Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Ball <jeffball@zoominternet.net>
To: Astro-Photo <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:48 AM
Subject: [APML] Moon comparison with 3 films: eclipse prep


> Hello all,
> I shot 3 films and digital last nearly full moon.  Two objectives were to
> show subtle color variations in the Mare and to prepare for the upcoming
> lunar eclipse.  I shot with Provia 100F, E100, and Fuji 100 print.  In my
> situation, I prefer the Provia mainly because it seemed to take sharpening
a
> little better without excessive grain.  This could all be related to focus
> at the scope or scanning, who knows?
>
> Another goal was to make a large print.  Scanning at 4000 dpi is producing
a
> 19"x15" print after cropping.  I wanted to be faithful to the "brightness"
> of the full moon in my processing.  The raw scanned image does show a
marked
> contrast between the mare and the bright craters.  I tried to minimize
that
> contrast without compromising surface features. I, also, tried my best to
> adjust color balance appropiately.  The midlevels are hard to determine.
I
> think the high end and the low ends are OK.
>
> Here is the Fuji Provia version:
>
> http://www.astro-photography.com/moon_provia.htm
>
>
> E100 version (not as cleaned up as the provia):
> http://www.astro-photography.com/moon_e100.htm
>
> Fuji 100 print version:
> I gave up early on the Fuji print, but here it is for FYI.
> http://www.astro-photography.com/moon_fuji100.htm
>
>
> Just for fun, here is the digital version:
>
> http://www.astro-photography.com/natural_fullmoon.htm
>
> I am surprised that I am picking the Fuji Provia for my print.  At first,
I
> thought the digital would be hard to beat, but the film just seems more
> robust to me.  I did not sweat over the processing on the digital, but I
did
> revisit it for some more processing later.  I still like what I can get
out
> of the Provia for a large print over rezzing up the digital file.
>
> Lunar eclipse preparation:
> I have been debating film vs. CCD for the lunar eclipse.  My problem is
that
> I cannot fit the full moon onto 35mm format with my AP 2x barlow.  I hate
to
> give up the image scale and go with prime focus.  With the 2x barlow, I am
> shooting with 100 speed film for the full moon at 1/30.  According to
> Covington, during a lunar eclipse, I am looking at using ISO 400 or 800 to
> get exposures in some reasonable range at f16.  Exposures with 400 ISO
range
> from 25 seconds for a light eclipse to 5-20 minutes for a dark eclipse.
Is
> there a prediction on the brightness of this eclipse?  I am contemplating
a
> purchase of the Baader barlow system which I believe would accomodate
medium
> format work which would allow me to shoot with 2x or more and get the full
> moon on medium format.  But this starts to extend exposure time which
> concerns me.  Just wanted to run these ideas out there to see if there was
> some advice.  I really want to make a large print from the eclipse and
> barlowed medium format looks attractive.  Peter Ward has the benchmark
lunar
> eclipse picture for me at AP's website gallery.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Jeff Ball
> www.astro-photography.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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