Re: [APML] LE400 (was: Unhypered Print Film)

["bert katzung" <katzung1@home.com>]

Hi Steve:
I checked some of my shots with LE400 for comparison. I think something else
is going on with yours. See:
http://www.astronomy-images.com/images/Nebulas/m42-new-2000-12.htm
Some suggestions: stack at least 2 negatives and consider BGSmooth for grain
reduction; watch out for color balance going haywire. (I haven't had that
much problem with grain with LE400.)
Might it be worth your posting your original scans from the LE400 and
letting some of us have a shot at it?
Bert

Bert Katzung
katzung1@home.com
www.astronomy-images.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Lindsey" <stevelindsey@earthlink.net>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Monday, 01 October, 2001 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: [APML] LE400 (was: Unhypered Print Film)


>
> Matt,
>
> I posted this a few days ago and all I got was one response with
> a recommendation to try a different film.  The details of my
> latest 4 shots a linked as NEW on my webpage.  Maybe you can
> recommend something I missed like longer exposure times?  Take
> a look:
>
> www.geocities.com/stevelindsey2001/
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
> >--- Original Message ---
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >Why was LE400 awful?
> >
> >What were the parameters? Object, Exposure, F-stop, Telescope
> model, Conditions: transparency, seeing, LVM 6.7, temperature,
> humidity, Processing: scanner, etc. Can you give us a link to
> the image?
>
>
>
>
>
> --  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>