Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Moon exposure

The Warthog

By The Warthog
in Imaging - Discussion

Recommended Posts

The Warthog

The Warthog

Posted
Posted

Can anyone give me a hint as to what shutter speed (yes, we're talking film here!) I might want to use with DIN200 film, a f9.5 scope with a 2x barlow in place, and the moon at first quarter or thereabouts. I just shot off a roll at 1/60th, but I'm afraid it will turn out overexposed, and until the batteries for my ancient camera get here, I don't want to waste too much precious film.

Thanks for any suggestions you can give...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kaptain Klevtsov

Kaptain Klevtsov

Posted
Posted

Well that didn't take long. f/6 at 1/250th DIN200 worked out OK, so 1/60th would work out OK at f/12, if I got the sums right. For f/19 you would be maybe a stop out? Its close enough that your photos should come out useable and give you a starting position to work from.

My data is from a fullish moon shot, but I expect the leeway of modern film would cover a stop either way, after all the dynamic range of an image is in the order of ten stops worth of exposure or more.

Hope they come out OK WH, looking forward to haring about them being framed on your kitchen wall.

Kaptain Klevtsov

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kaptain Klevtsov

Kaptain Klevtsov

Posted
Posted

I was being a little humourous there WH, as the air in front of the film is of the same quality with the Zenit as the Pentax, and there's nothing else in there with a SLR. Just so everybody knows. A used Zenit should be $20 ish I'd have thought. A used Nikon SLR was £25, if thats anything to go by, but it wasn't a posh one.

Kaptain Klevtsov

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Warthog

The Warthog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, I realize that, but I do need those slow shutter speeds and to get them in a new Zenit, I'd have to spend $150. My Fuji lost its slow shutter speeds a few years ago, and I couldn't find anyone who could fix it. It still has all the qualities that made it a great camera when I bought it more than 30 years ago, though. A new digital SLR is just more than I can handle, and I won't be getting a camera that will be just as good 10 years from now. A new film SLR may be so outdated 10 years from now that I won't be able to get film for it any more. So, going the used route makes a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chkm8

chkm8

Posted
Posted

False economy comes to mind here. How much is a 2nd hand film SLR going to cost. Now add on the cost of film and developing. The fact you can shoot off an entire roll of film only to get it back and find the exposure is wrong and it was completely wasted. Not to mention you need to use the entire roll before you can leave the film in for developing so you have the waiting factor to see your pictures. No option to post process etc. The cost of numerous rolls of film plus developing would go a long way towards a DSLR especially as they are coming down in price so quickly.

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cloudwatcher

Cloudwatcher

Posted
Posted

What John says is so very true.

I used to use a Pentax P30n,an excellent light weight SLR ( which must be over 20 years old now at least and still in mint condition) but you could never be sure of the results particularly with astro work. I have never done my own developing and printing and you have little if any control over the final print. You can tell the guy in the camera shop that the film you are handing in is not the usual holiday snaps and might need special attention but you can bet your life it will be put through the 'machine' just like any other film roll.

A 25 frame film here costs £7 or £8 to process and you can end up with nothing more than a collection of black oblongs! Even with a free film along with your photos the cost can soon mount up with little to show. As John points out the cost difference of a DSLR would soon be saved and you don't have to wait to see what you have captured. :lol:

CW

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Warthog

The Warthog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I appreciate what John is saying, but as photography is no longer my principal hobby, I don't think I want to make a $900 investment in a camera that will be used mainly for astrophotography. It cost $5 to put the last film on a disk, and a roll of fast film cost $11. It will take a long time to use 50 rolls of film, as I am primarily a visual astronomer. If decent digital SLRs begin to get into the $200 to $300 range, I might have a look again. I saw a nice looking one (Canon, I think) for $650 this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barkis

barkis

Posted
Posted

Hi WH, you can always use the top hat trick, and judge your own exposures from .5 secs. upwards. It is a tried and tested method, and I am sure you will have used it in the past. Also, Carol offered you a file of Michael Covingtons Lunar Exposure tables. I was about to do the same,

so as Carol is nearer to Canada than the UK (I THINK ) you might be better using hers. :lol:

Ron. :D

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.