Re: [APML] E200

["John Boudreau" <jeboud@mediaone.net>]

Hi Rick,

I haven't shot it yet, but according from the info I've come across so far,
NPH400 is more green and blue sensitive than E200. The majority of light
pollution records in the green sensitive layer, so it stands to reason that
it will record light pollution better than E200.

Of course NPH400 has a faster rating than E200 also, but from what I
understand NPH has very noticeable reciprocity failure, and should really
benefit from hypering. Hard to say how well it's recording at the tail end
of a 3 hr exposure, as compared to E200.

I do have a roll of NPH that I plan on hypering, perhaps in a couple of
weeks.

As far as processing goes, I'm one of the scan, Photoshop, and inkjet guys
<g>.

John Boudreau
jeboud@mediaone.net
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/jeboud/astro.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Thurmond" <thurmond@saber.net>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 10:50 PM
Subject: [APML] E200


> Do others find like I do that E200 is nearly immune to light pollution?
> I've taken 3 hour exposures at f/7 and I can barely see the edge of the
> exposure, and that isn't under super-dark skies.  Same exposure on
> NPH-400 would have shown lots of light pollution and less of the nebula
> I'm interested in.
>
> Also, is there anyone else doing darkroom work to print from their
> film?  Or has scanning entirely replaced chemicals?
>
> --Rick
>
> --  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>