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

["Marco Lorenzi" <lorenzi@libero.it>]

Matt, thank you for your feedback. I fully agree with you that colour films
are better but right now there are not very good negative film. Perhaps
RG200 could be the right choice but it needs to be hypered and even if it
could not be the main issue it should be stored in cold place and developed
asap after exposure. I will develop all shots back in Europe so I don't
think it is feasible. Furthermore I have not enough time to "play" with this
film before my departure and I don't feel confident about using it without
any test. I will shot @ f/6.3 and f/4 (telephoto only) so HQ100 to me is too
slow. For bright objects (M8, NGC3372) I am planning to add a short exposure
to recover core details, I did it many times (especially true with M42
classical shots).
So eventually I think I have no much possibilities even for 35mm, since
PJ400 is no longer available. I hope to get good results anyway to show you
next months...
Marco

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt BenDaniel" <matt@starmatt.com>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: [APML] film [was: Coal Sack & Jewel Box]


> 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>


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