Digital or Film SLR Camera?

[Voyager]

After seeing Saturn the other morning for the very first time , i've decided to take the next step and get into astrophotography. So i managed to get hold of a cheap 35mm SLR film camera and the adapter for my scope to start me off. I saw a website on astrophotography, it said a film SLR camera was better than Digital camera for taking photo's of the night sky, is this true?

Also, when i get the film developed, is it possible to transfer the pictures onto a CD like you can with a digital?

[Psychobilly]

I would love to see a link to that website... I think that information could be a little bit out of date.

Digital "Sensors" have transformed Astrophotography to the extent that a sub £300 DSLR is capable of producing shots that only a decade ago major obs would have been proud to produce..

There are several advantages with Digital over Film... not least of these is Immediacy... you get a Good idea straight away what your going to have to work with...and tats another advantage you can process the digital data to your hearts content using "free" software.

If you haven't already take a wander into the imaging sections of the forum and you will see loads of images captured not only with dedicated AStro CCD's but also DSLR's

Billy...

[Voyager]

This was the site http://www.my-spot.com/astrophotography.htm

[Dave Moulton]

After seeing Saturn the other morning for the very first time , i've decided to take the next step and get into astrophotography. So i managed to get hold of a cheap 35mm SLR film camera and the adapter for my scope to start me off. I saw a website on astrophotography, it said a film SLR camera was better than Digital camera for taking photo's of the night sky, is this true?

Also, when i get the film developed, is it possible to transfer the pictures onto a CD like you can with a digital?

Difficult to be upbeat about verturing down the film route as Billy has said there are just too many advantages if you were to go down the digital path.

I Know it is possible to put the images onto a cd if you shoot slide film but unless you process the slides yourself or request they are sent back from the photo lab unmounted then the lab are bound to chop your hard won astronomy pictures in half.

Dave

[Psychobilly]

as i thought its just a tad out of date ....

Billy...

[Voyager]

Well i'll give it a go using a film camera, if the results aren't good, i'll try a webcam until i can afford a good digital camera, i've already seen images what a webcam can produce at my local club .

[Psychobilly]

Good luck and Clear Skies...

Billy...

[iancandler]

Actually though digital is easier and it makes it easier to work on the images film still has a superior resolution compared to even 14.6mp DSLR's .

With film though you dont get instant results, that makes it inherantly harder to work with as many found out back in the day.

To the OP:

Make sure you get at least 400ASA film, fuji colour is one of the best IMO all round.

If doing any deep sky shots I would up that to at least 800ASA or even faster if you can find stocks.

[Naz]

With film you will require very long exposures for deep sky objects, tracking would be a major problem. also grain from the faster films, even at 400 ISO. Also you the film has an inherent failing, called reciprocity failure, this due to the sensitivity of the film failing at long exposures.

Stick to the moon and planets and you should get some good reults.

Archie

[barkis]

Well, film Astrophotography is not quite dead yet. I'm sure it is active in many enclaves.

When you look back at the work of Michael Covington, Patrick Martinez, and of course Dr. David Malin, there were some wonderful stuff produced. Of course you will migrate to Digital imaging in the end, but If you have the gear ready for SLR imaging, then by all means satisfy yourself in a practical way. You may give yourself a pleasant surprise, or a headache, but have a go. Guiding accurately is the big issue. Digital technology has taken good care of that aspect. If you know anyone with a setup with autoguiding, ask if you can piggyback your slr camera, to see what results you can achieve.

Ron.

[scotastro]

Although I have digital imagers I still use Fuji Sensia 400 ASA slide film on occasion for things like aurora, noctilucent clouds and wide field imaging.

I always have the Fuji lab mount the slides and they have never ever cut through or badly mounted a slide even when the whole film is just astrophotographs.

It is very immediate too, without needing dark frames or flat field images. If you get the image right you get a good image without hours of processing, stacking, etc. Of course for faint objects digital is hard to beat.

Film is a cheap way to do astrophotography is you only want to do it occasionally, second hand cameras a very cheap (£20), film is getting a bit expensive at about £9 to £10 for process paid slide film.

Fuji will put your slides onto a CD but they tend to do a bad job of that. Scanners are quite cheap and will reproduce the slide image well.

Mike

[Talitha]

A few film tips..

Take a few bright pics (of a lightbulb, etc) at the beginning of the roll so the lab's processing machine will know what sprocket holes to grab as a baseline for centering the dark images.

When dropping off the film, tell them the images are of the night sky.They might have to process them manually if the machine's going to reject them as being unexposed frames.

[Jeff RV]

Food for thought!!

As your already to go with 35mm, it's not a hard process to develop your own negs and pics particuarly with b/w, then you can view your progress the same evening.

You just need a 35mm film developing canister, developer and some stop bath ( diluted acetic acid ) which basically is vinegar.

You open the 35mm film can in total darkness (cupboard etc) and wind the undeveloped neg into the d/canister and replace the lid, then you can switch on a light, now pour the developer in and turn the knob back and forth for a certain amount of time (depends on type of chemical ie, Ilford etc), then tip the developer out and the stop bath in for a minute or two, then rinse with water and a very very small amount of washing up liquid, then hang to dry,. Do not use a film squeegee if you try this!!

For the processing of the pics an enlarger is needed, although you can make a contact print without one.

All the processing chemicals and equipment is available commercially and not expensive for b/w, colour requires temperature control though, but is not hard.

This will give you a good insight to b/w pics.

Jeff.

[Psychobilly]

In the old days.. I use to use the imfamous "please process as exposed" note when sending films off to the lab for processing... I also used to take some light frames on the front and also a picture of a piece of paper with my name and address written on it...

Billy...

[Doc]

Instead of using an enlarger to process your negs get a film scanner.

Then just scan your negs into it. With certain makes you get ICE software so you can remove dust particles from your image.

then store your negs on your PC and print whatever you want.

[Jeff RV]

Instead of using an enlarger to process your negs get a film scanner.

Then just scan your negs into it. With certain makes you get ICE software so you can remove dust particles from your image.

then store your negs on your PC and print whatever you want.

Didn't think of that

Jeff.