Has anyone here really tried this extensively? I'm interested in attempting something like this. Any results to show off?
Printable View
Has anyone here really tried this extensively? I'm interested in attempting something like this. Any results to show off?
No I haven't tried it. But I have to ask why? The grain large by comparison with the much slower films so the fine detail people usually require in astro images just won't be there.
Subscribed. I've been wondering about this myself for years. I figure if you had a good mount that tracked, some images should be usable. You're gonna make me dig out my 10" scope...
I made some moon photos recently at Fuji Neopan 1600, I'm waiting for the results :)
Anyway, I think for astrophotography there is not too much sense to use grainy film.
To be honest I think for astrophotography really the digital rules, not the film.
Please have a look at the home-page of my favorite astro-photographer: http://www.astroeder.com/deepsky/deepsky.htm
He has many film photos as well, either 120 or 35mm format.
Space really is an amazing place.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcsaba1981
I guess i ask this out of ignorance. I've attempted some using digital, where high ISO is usually the way to go, so I sort of figured the same here. But after I posted this thread I found some stuff on flickr such as 30-45 minute exposures with Neopan Acros 100 that looked incredible, and I've got a bunch of that (as well as Provia 400X).
Mainly scope-less. I figured I'd take my Hassy 500 CM out a clear, cold Norwegian winter night.
While I haven't tried either of these for astrophotography, it wouldn't surprise me if Acros 100 isn't actually faster than Delta 3200 when you get out past several minutes of exposure (due to the large difference in their reciprocity characteristics). Delta needs 150 seconds to get 30 seconds worth of exposure, but Acros just says +1/2 stop out to about 17 minutes.
I was thinking the same thing. I've ran Acros for a long, long time with no reciprocity issues....