Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Orion's Sword on Film

Nightfly

By Nightfly
in Imaging - Deep Sky

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Nightfly

Nightfly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Stunning work Jim.

We get so used so used to the look of the incredible digital images we see on here, that to see the stark contrast of a film image, really makes you look. For me the image feels

"more real", if that makes sense? The colours are superb.

Please post more!!

Yes that does make sense. What you are describing is the difficulty found in aesthetics. There is a feel that we all have to ultimately judge for ourselves as to what drives us emotionally.

I claim no superior abilities to the modern astrophotographer, he or she has left me in the dust. But if I can tickle out something that I know is valuable aesthetically to me in my images, perhaps others can see this as well. Thank you (and others here) for seeing just that.

The art of astrophotography is not just trying to go deeper and deeper with cleaner and tighter images, but to be communicators. We communicate the natural world through our work with our own eyes.

I'm happy to report that feedback here at SGL has been a happy one with the kind remarks and well wishes truly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nightfly

Nightfly

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Tom and Kevin. I make due with very little to work with. It certainly is not hard, unless you have light polluted skes, then your sunk!

i love some of the pics of star fields jim in your flikr :D iv added you this post may have renewed flim AP main stream! ;)

I don't know about that. Film is truly dying, but not outside the astrophotography realm. For those of us in the analog field, film is doing very well. Large formats such as 4x5 and 8x10 have the resolution and tonality you just can't duplicate any other way.

Thank you for your enthusiasm!:icon_salut:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nightfly

Nightfly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hi Nightfly love what you are doing with 35mm , Have you tried useing infrared slide film. I have use it for day work may be it time to have ago at some night sky.

Thank you. I have been tempted to try infrared film, but from what tests I have seen all infrared films have very poor reciprocity in exposures longer than a few seconds. That's too bad, because as you know red sensitivity is a sought after quality in a film for astrophotography. Testing films is part of the hobby of film astrophotography and I have done my share of testing. The search continues.

Rollei Superpan 200 is a extended red film that I may try. Rollei Retro 400S is another. So little time to test, let alone shoot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starlight 1

Starlight 1

Posted
Posted
Thank you. I have been tempted to try infrared film, but from what tests I have seen all infrared films have very poor reciprocity in exposures longer than a few seconds. That's too bad, because as you know red sensitivity is a sought after quality in a film for astrophotography. Testing films is part of the hobby of film astrophotography and I have done my share of testing. The search continues.

Rollei Superpan 200 is a extended red film that I may try. Rollei Retro 400S is another. So little time to test, let alone shoot!

I do like the Kodak professional Elite Chrome 200 film Its very good for

astrophotography.PS just looking at your Milky Way with Elite Chrome 200 film ,That is very nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nightfly

Nightfly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I do like the Kodak professional Elite Chrome 200 film Its very good for

astrophotography.PS just looking at your Milky Way with Elite Chrome 200 film ,That is very nice.

Yes, E200 was the standard astrophotography stock from Kodak. I have lots in the freezer, including the 120 format version. Wonderful film.

In case anyone is wondering about the setup that took this image. Here it is.

The camera and lens, circa 1973

The telescope and associated equipment, 1983

The roll of Kodak Gold 100, 2012

5798061658_22709a1d2d_z.jpg

Spotmatic with 300mm Takumar Piggybacked by Nightfly Photography, on Flickr

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimStan

JimStan

Posted
Posted

I'm used to seeing a tad more blue-purple color in the "wings" of M42, but who is to argue with such an exquisite picture as that ? ? ? And I absolutely LOVE the "running man" nebula's colors! Great job !

Jim S

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nightfly

Nightfly

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Jim, et al. I agree that the color may disagree with reality. Each film responds differently, especially in long exposure work. The CA is bothersome, but can create some beautiful images just the same.

I don't recommend anyone to pursue film work today. If you are just starting out, start with current technology. I like being able to show that it can still be done the old fashioned way. As much as it may seem, it is not difficult. If I am after a particular target with a certain outcome, I can almost guarantee success. This was not a one of of twenty exposure good luck result, but a one out of one result. Of course you could say that the satellite trail would warrant a retake!

Thank you again for the nice comments.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rihard

Rihard

Posted
Posted

Lovely results!! This is very inspiring! Well done!

I always thought what FILM astrophotography would be like in comparison to digital.

I have an old Praktica MTL 3 in perfect working order... I gotta buy some film rolls and give this a try.

Please delight us with more of these pictures.

Clear skies

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Nightfly

Nightfly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
fantastic image! here is my attempt on film sorry about the cloud!Kodak gold 200 pentax k1000 single exsposure was taken a few months back now!only just bought a scanner! [ATTACH]87177[/ATTACH]

Nice to see that you are attempting film work. What was your setup? Lens/aperture/exposure, etc? It looks to be a brief exposure. Thanks for sharing this.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scosmico

Scosmico

Posted
Posted

VEry nice Jim.

Quite inspiring for the short budgeters, my case.

Well said Gina. It really is not that hard. Here is what I do.

1. Load film

2. Take images, until roll is complete (24 exposures in this case) which is about a weeks worth of shooting along with a few family pic's.

3. Send film out, get back in af few days.

4. Load negative into scanner, scan, post process (less than 1 hour) and post!

The process is different than digital workflow, but not a whole lot different. Waiting occurs at different moments. The negative is archival and exists in material form vs. electronic. The film actually contains photons captured by a chemical process and are "forever" locked onto the emulsion. I find that very cool.

Once the negative is scanned it can be processed like a digital captured image in PixInsight and Photoshop. Digital mavens like to make much of reciprocity failure. Yes, many films have this problem, but not all. My 30 minute exposure hear shows very clearly it can capture much in a similar amount of time taken with a digi-cam. Some films are even more sensitive, such as Kodak's E200. It can go very deep and can record well for exposures lasting hours.

For most work however, I do yield to digital. It is the present and the future of astrophotography. I love the results I see from other members here, but I shoot film out of tradition and necessity.

I can't buy digital gear, I cannot afford a new camera every few years, or buy an autoguider when I want one. What I lack in equipment I more than make up for in passion and skill in an art that I won't let die.

Thank you all for your kind comments here today.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
rfdesigner

rfdesigner

Posted
Posted

Well said Gina. It really is not that hard. Here is what I do.

1. Load film

2. Take images, until roll is complete (24 exposures in this case) which is about a weeks worth of shooting along with a few family pic's.

3. Send film out, get back in af few days.

4. Load negative into scanner, scan, post process (less than 1 hour) and post!

The process is different than digital workflow, but not a whole lot different. Waiting occurs at different moments. The negative is archival and exists in material form vs. electronic. The film actually contains photons captured by a chemical process and are "forever" locked onto the emulsion. I find that very cool.

in my case it included

5. throw in bin because I noticed I was one or more of

A; out of focus

B: misaligned

C: uncollimated

D: film fogging

E: plain missed the target

F: guidescope/mainscope slippage.

6: need extensive hot baths to relieve aching back caused by manual guiding

I take my hat off to you. A truely excellent image.

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nightfly

Nightfly

Posted
  • Author
Posted

also took this last year sometime with my Pentax k1000 and fuji superia 400 @ 50mm 3.5 not sure of the exposure tho! just thought I would share it and see what u think:)post-12473-133962093161_thumb.jpg

There is some good Milky Way structure in there. Light pollution got the best of what would otherwise be a good photo. Watch the guiding and focus here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.