Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,889   Posts: 1,520,821   Online: 1148
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1
    Denis R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    50156 & 51334 IA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    284

    I want to blow up the moon!

    and make it fit on 8x10
    majority of prints are 5x7 or 3x5

    moon is 1.8mm on film

    camera N75 with 55-200 vr at 200
    film Delta 400 35mm

    enlarger Omega B-600
    current lens is el-nikkor 50mm f4
    wall mount optoion allows for 10 ft under the lens
    I like it better than the beseler 35-67-67sc models

    now here's the questions

    1. which enlarger lens to use
    I found the chart at http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/lenses.htm and sorted the info in excel to find possible lenses in 39mm mount, which has a range of 21 - 38 mm

    2. since this will use a small part of the frame and lens, is it possible to get by without changing condenser

    3. who will send me the lens? it's worth a try

    also will need a 75mm later for 6x6

    previous serches were irrelevant
    Kodak Duaflex II with kodet lens
    N75 N8008s D60
    Yashica - D
    Only a photographer knows the true value of infinity

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,908
    If the moon is 1.8mm on film and you want it to fill a paper that is 8 inches wide, that means it will be magnified 113 times... It'll be similar to taking a typical portrait and blow up the eyeball to fill the page.

    There will be no details to speak of when it's all said and done. Is it really worth your effort??

  3. #3
    David William White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,182
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    You should consider a longer lens -- maybe a cohort has a 300mm to borrow? Also strongly urge a slower, finer grained film to make this even remotely possible.
    Considerably AWOL at the present time...

    Archive/Blog: http://davidwilliamwhite.blogspot.com

  4. #4
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    If you enlarge a 1.8mm image of the moon that has a resolution of 100 lines/mm (read excellent lens, film and technique) to 178mm, or about 7 inches diameter to fit on an 8x10 print, your print resolution will be about 1 line/mm at the very best. Assuming a more reasonable level of performance, you're looking at about .33 to .5 lines per mm on the print, and you'll need to enlarge by a factor of about 100. Most enlarger lenses are designed to perform well at smaller magnification ratios than this.

    Of course it's your call whether you want to spend time and money on this.

    Lee

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    736
    Images
    68
    haha, the title of this thread cracked me up

  6. #6
    bobwysiwyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,545
    Images
    3
    Didn't NASA recently try this?
    WYSIWYG - At least that's my goal.

    Portfolio-http://apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=25518

  7. #7
    David William White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,182
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    I know NASA has taken some nice photographs of the moon, but if memory serves, they did it by moving the camera physically closer, but don't quote me on that.
    Considerably AWOL at the present time...

    Archive/Blog: http://davidwilliamwhite.blogspot.com

  8. #8
    rthomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,099
    The best way to achieve this with some detail is to use an equatorial-mount telescope for the initial exposure. 800-1000mm fl would be a start (any decent 2.4" refractor or 4-5" reflector), 2000mm would be better (most 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes are ~2000mm). See if there are any astronomy clubs in your area, maybe you can gain access to such a scope.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    152
    Images
    7
    As others have said, you really ought to take the photo with a much longer lens (rent one if facilities or friends are near) and finer grained film.

    Or, better yet, buy a cheap reflector telescope (cheap being totally relative and subjective, of course...$400 should get you very very fine quality - or at least it did for me back in 1998) and get a cheap adapter and get some really incredible photos for many years to come

  10. #10
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    First of all shoot with ~1000 mm focal length.... whether by telescope with T mount or by doubling a good long prime with a TC or by digital means (I like to think of an APS digital as an electronic TC with no light loss). E.g. I recall shooting a 400/3.5 manual prime with a 2x TC and that gave me a reasonably frame filling shot and good level of detail. N.b. I suggest digital because the well-established way to achieve the best signal:noise is by stacking multiple frames. If you do it by film then you'll need to shoot and then scan and then stack... doable, but a bit laborious. Stacking will take the results to a whole new level.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin