And my article analyzing his results was in the following issue.
Originally Posted by Lee L
You could move to my part of West Virginia to avoid light pollution.
Bracketting f-stops is OK when you are not concerned about depth of field. Bracketting time is hard to predict and sometimes hard to tolerate.
I knew there was something magic about 1.62 besides its geometric perfection.
Originally Posted by gainer
I haven't ordered the back issue with your reciprocity article yet, although I did fill in around my lapsed subscription with most of your developer articles. And you've described your method well here on APUG and Unblinkingeye. I did happen to stumble across Bond's article when it was on the magazine website briefly as a publicly available .pdf, so I snagged it. For those looking for your follow on article, it's titled "Reciprocal Trade Agreement". They appear to have taken down all the sample articles they used to have on the Photo Techniques web site, and I don't feel free to distribute the .pdf of the Bond article due to copyright.
As you know, 1.618... is the Fibonacci ratio, the golden mean ratio known as phi after the sculptor Phidias, etc... lots of good natural resonance right around that spot. I used Fibonacci numbered seconds to hand print B&W in a lab, about 2000 prints a month with 2 D5's and a roller transport, judging exposure by eye. People were surprized when they asked for repeat prints and got essentially identical reprints, but I knew it was always at 3, 5, 8, or 13 seconds, and that spacing works great for meaningful but not drastic changes in density. You can also make a test strip at that spacing by just moving a card as you count seconds, and letting the exposures stack up, like f-stop printing at just over 1/2 stop intervals.
I used to live south of you near the Jefferson National Forest and the Blue Ridge Parkway, where I first started shooting night skies under good conditions, but a job change forced a move. I do visit the "wild and wonderful" when I get the chance.