Nightfly

Thank you all for the engagement on this subject. I'm preparing for a busy summer of new work, and it's never been a better time to continue my effort. Thank you.

In 2012 I was doing sequence frames with one camera. The two frames being done one right after the other. In this case, the Pentax 67 with 165mm f/2.8 portrait lens was used. No advanced software's were used. Once the frames are scanned, they are combined with mosaic software to stitch them together. The results are then imported into Photoshop. Basic levels and curves are applied. Color is managed, then the file is saved. This becomes the master file. I'm glossing over some specifics in work flow in image acquisition and image processing. All of it is basic stuff. I don't use Pixinsight or the likes. The resulting image is not made with modern wizardry. This is all done by my eyes. This was imaged when overhead at my dark sky home. Magnitude limit is 7+ and visually the contrast of the sky is very high. The North America Nebula is seen visually, the star clouds are brilliant, and numerous dark nebulae are plainly visible. None of this is possible from a light polluted sky. Filters would not prove adequate, and the natural tone and contrast of the image would be impossible. To your point, yes a DSLR would also prove to be equally effective here. The rendering would be less cinematic, and more beholding to the sensors Bayer Pattern characteristics - overly sharp and with garish colors in my opinion.

This is two 50 minute exposures combined to form a mosaic. This resulted in an increases the field size, and provided an output at the level of large format. The film is Superia 100 which was $5.00 a roll at the time. The image highlights LeGentil 3, which is often confused with the Northern Coal Sac in Cygnus. Because of its high density of low level information, we can make out the delicate tendrils within this dark nebulae. This was 12 years ago with color film. Compare with modern digital efforts to appreciate the prowess of this process. That, and the color fidelity of analog. One key difference touted with digital is the lack of reciprocity failure. While this is true, how much does the digital work flow depend on stacking to counter accumulated noise? And while taking light frames, dark frames, bias frames, etc... do we really have shorter exposures after all? Film may suffer from the effect, however - once the single exposure is registered on film, it is full of information that can be extracted from within. Look around. At the top of the frame, the icy blue of the Iris Nebula is clearly visible in this wide-field image - so is the Cacoon on the lower left. As are so many more. Check out the delicate colors of each of the stars, especially the brighter members seen. Each star has its own subtle color and brightness. That, and the immense magnitude penetration of the image, which exceeds 13th magnitude. Nothing is lost in the noise or mottle normally associated with modern digital subframes. The delicate red and blue shadings of the stellar background are real. The film is picking up lots of low level information. But, it is the delicate tendrils of LeGentil 3 that do it for me.

Those early years of astrophotography were daunting. This is one reason I stuck with piggyback work. It was much easier and rewarding. I shot through the scope in the 90s and had some successes. I returned to wide-field work and stayed there. Deep sky observing was my first love, and I often spend a night observing. The direct connection reaches the deep experience of wonder. I'm thankful for that era. It was a great period to be involved in astronomy, and guides like Burnham's made the experience so much more enjoyable.

Thank you Paul. I long to do more wintertime sessions, but as I get older I become less tolerant of the cold. When this image was taken, I had the fire within to keep me warm. I'm working on ways to get there again. The upcoming warm season will find me busy as I am concentrating on my new work flow recently made possible by the new observatory and equatorial mount. I am very fortunate. I now find myself with the opportunity to look at all my previous work as practice. Armed with refined methods and experience I am ready for what could be my greatest efforts. This striving for excellence is still within me, and I am excited about the possibilities. I seldom post images, as they are made on the forums. As much as I appreciate the kind remarks of others, it is important for me to not be held captive by approval, or discouraged by disapproval. As you can imagine, pursuing such a difficult and obscure craft requires fierce independence of mind. Image acquisition is a mindful chore. I accept what is obtained within the scope of what is possible with the materials used. These limitations help me push the boundaries.

One aspect of analog work that often applies in these circumstances is the size of stars relative to their magnitude. Most notably in 35mm work. Being observing guides, publications such as Kepple and Sanner's NSG, need illustrative photographs that emphasize stellar magnitudes. Burnham's Celestial Handbook is a great example. The photographs contained in those three volumes are dated, but still have great esthetic merit.

It is good to see your efforts towards the goal of doing good astrophotography with film. I agree that the weather can make or break our efforts. I live in New England and we do not have the best skies weatherwise. I share at least some of the frustration. Having a permanent observatory helps tremendously. It makes all the difference in taking advantage of the clear nights we do have. While there are a few films that have sensitivities to the extended red portion of the spectrum, they are not suitable for astrophotography. They may record stars and the brightest of nebulae, but they lack raw "recording power". Much of the forums (CN) are filled with these tests. Some try to hyper these red sensitive films, but they cannot be beaten into submission. Typical panchromatic films do not quite make it to the Ha line. This is true of the Tmax and Acros line of films. Acros being technically orthopanchromatic. Some films record well with faster lenses, as the reciprocity curve can work well in the shorter exposures. Provia 100F is such a film. Working at f/2.8 it is an excellent film for astrophotography. At f/5.6 - f/11 it is the best star trail color film using exposures from 1 to 6 hours. For black and white, Acros and Tmax 400 are excellent in long exposure work. While they may not record into the deeper red, they do record the prominent OIII emissions that are common in nebulae. This can be enough in very long exposures to reveal the structure of these bright emission nebulae. The best films are gone. Kodak's E100S and E200 will never have a peer in what remains of color transparency films. Konica 400 Pro and Fujifilm Superia 100 were great films 20 years ago. These color negative films were excellent. I see nothing in the Foma line that excites me. These are traditional emulsions and perform like the films of the 1950s. I don't test many films anymore. I took a census of many films years ago and settled on what works. Testing will rob you of time doing the work. You can be hopeful and look for the holy grail of astrofilms, but I would encourage you to work with what is available and what works. Tech Pan is gone, and nothing will compare to her. Fast films are the slowest for astro work. One exception - TMY-2. Also known as Tmax 400. Acros is king. The best black and white film ever made for long exposure work of any kind. Tmax 400 is a close second. It loses two stops rather quickly, then levels off near the speed of Acros. Don't bother with Tmax 100. A great film for daytime, but not so great for long exposures in the extremes. I'm giving away the goods. There's other information you might find interesting in an interview I did with Brian Ventrudo a few years ago. https://cosmicpursuits.com/3471/milky-way-photography-on-medium-format-film-q-and-a-with-james-cormier/ Keep up with the efforts. Don't get bogged down with film testing. If you find the testing interesting, then by all means. James

For the image of Cygnus, I used a Toyo 45AR with 210mm f/5.6 Sironar. The film is Fuji Acros 100 4x5. Exposure was 60 minutes. The sheet was scanned then touched up in Photoshop. Simple levels and contrast manipulations were used to complete the image. I generally use the 6x7 for astrophotography. In the image below you can see the three camera setup I use to take advantage of my precious exposure time. The Losmandy G11 requires no corrections with lenses 300mm and under.

Agreed. The technology today is simply astounding, and the results beyond the dreams of amateurs even just 20 years ago. As the self-appointed spokesperson and modern day practitioner of analog astrophotography, I yield to digital. That being said, I have not been able to let go of my craft. If I had made the leap to digital twenty years ago, I'm sure I would be making "better" images. But, since this my avocation, and in that I find my work gratifying, there's really no reason to change my ways. One big reason for me personally is the amount of gear, software, computer equipment, and lots and lots of acquisition time necessary to make a good go of it. My sessions are quiet and dark, as it was done in the days when Edward Emerson Barnard made his great images atop the new Mount Wilson site in 1905. I find the sessions very relaxing and my mind quite still during exposures. No screens or bleeps to ruin my attitude. A respite from technology, which surrounds each and every one of us. I recently made investments to continue my analog work flow. My work has no peer, as I am pretty much alone in this field. I do communicate with about three others that are still doing it. I happen to have pristine skies, and that makes the work very much worth the time I invest in each image. For those outside of the analog photography community, it would seem film is dead. That's far from the truth. There is a renaissance that has been happening for many years now. Film is very much alive.

Hello, I happened to see this thread from last year. I concur. Film is truly dead. I don't recommend that anyone even try it. It's a lost cause. That being said, a shot from last October from my home observatory. I may post a new thread with some images I've made recently. Cheers! Jim