[APML] film [was: Coal Sack & Jewel Box]

[Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com>]

Marco,

Thanks for your note.

For wide field shots I like E200 because it emphasizes red nebulosity and 
has fine grain.

I'm not sure what went wrong with the Coal Sack picture on 400F. Maybe it 
was overexposed. The other 400F shots came out well, but here look at this 
shot:
http://world.std.com/~mattb/gallery/astro/ic4628a.html
The nebulosity came out alright, but the star colors are mostly washed 
out.  Again, due to limited dynamic range, slide film burns out stars 
quicker than negative film. That's a major reason why most experienced 
astrophotographers prefer negative film for deep shots. How many slide 
shots do you see on Tony Hallas's site?

For deep telescopic shots, I think you're better off with negative film. 
You're shooting 35mm film, right? If you can arrange for hypered RG200 that 
would be best for most kinds of shots. For fast focal ratios HQ100 is good.

The one exception I would make is when the overriding objective is to 
capture faint H-a nebulosity. E200 is superb for that. But it also 
oversaturates on bright red stuff, so I wouldn't shoot, for example, M8 
with E200. I should have shot the Vela SNR on E200.

The reason I would shoot 400F in my telscope setup is that there isn't any 
good 6x7 color negative astro film. However, I think even my overdue PPF 
would have performed better if I'd had a dry purge setup. Back in the days 
when PPF was fresh (and hypered), I think nothing could beat it except for 
tricolor hypered tech pan. You know when Kodak stopped making PPF, I hadn't 
even started doing astrophotography.

It's really sad there that isn't one good 6x7 color negative astro film. 
That's one reason why I'll be shifting much of my attention this year to 
CCD. :-(

Matt

At 02:52 PM 5/20/2002, Marco Lorenzi wrote:
>Dear Matt, are you sure about that? I am spending the first two weeks of
>June in Namibia to take some shoots and I wanted to take just Provia 400F
>and E200 for blue and red objects. I found the first one very good on
>colour, considering of course that its exposure latitude range is not as
>good as a negative film but its grain is *far* better than PJ400 I used in
>the past. Looking at all the beautiful pictures you have been posting last
>weeks I was very well impressed by all your slide shots, while you
>complained many times about some strange colour cast of your overdue PPF and
>its sensitivity to humidity. Now I am a little bit puzzled. What would you
>keep with you now for another trip in the Southern hemisphere?
>Ciao
>Marco
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Matt BenDaniel" <matt@starmatt.com>
>To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 11:46 AM
>Subject: Re: [APML] Coal Sack & Jewel Box
>
>
> > At 11:07 AM 5/20/2002 +0200, Volker Wendel wrote:
> > >Thatīs a very nice one, Matt. Do you think the brownish overall color is
> > >o.k.?
> >
> > No, it's not OK as far as I'm concerned.
> > But the color data in this 400F exposure is nothing like that on PPF.
> >
> > >BTW: whatīs that red object in the middle of the coal sack?
> >
> > RCW 71.
> >
> > --
> > Matt BenDaniel
> > matt@starmatt.com
> > http://starmatt.com
> >
> >
> > --  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>

--
Matt BenDaniel
matt@starmatt.com
http://starmatt.com


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