Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Film-based astrophotography is now history


Cosmic Geoff

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Film has had its day. It's like advocating the use of a horse and cart on a transport forum :biggrin:

And yet people still partake in horse races and take cart rides as a tourist and holiday activity, sometimes things are not done because they're practical but because we just enjoy them or are interested in the methodology!

I personally quite like how tactile the film shots I've done have been, even though my attempts at astro film havent been so successful!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/06/2023 at 06:20, Mr Spock said:

Film has had its day. It's like advocating the use of a horse and cart on a transport forum :biggrin:


Ouch🙁.  Well ok then, I sort of get that and I certainly admit that digital photography is so much “better” in many ways.

However, consider this, some folk like classic cars. It’s not because they’re more efficient, easier to drive, easier to get parts for, faster etc.  It’s because some of them are stunningly beautiful, fabulously engineered. It’s the same idea as traditional film photography equipment.  Just holding a Canon F1 35mm film camera complete with an FD lens, there’s simply nothing as satisfyingly fabulously beautiful.  In comparison a DSLR is a lump of uninspiring plastic, even if it’s more “efficient”.

I’ve had my moan and feel so much better😊unfortunately my shoulder is very sore because a Canon F1 and a bunch of lenses is so flippin’ HEAVY😁

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used film for 30 years and yet I have no film photos in my album. Simply put, my Nikon D500 is sharper, clearer and less noisy at ISO 6400 than (sharp) film like Kodachrome 25... Plus with film, once highlights are burned out and shadows are black, that's it, no amount of processing can recover them. With the D500 when shooting a normal scene at normal settings I have +3 -5 stops latitude at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found a couple of images which could shed some light on DSLR quality.

First one, shot at ISO 3200 and processed in DxO PhotoLab 6. Zero noise!

DSC_04862048.thumb.jpg.447647f225d832b71013ae4dbc45bf56.jpg

Second one - to show what's hidden in digital images and would not be available at all in film.
Top: straight out of camera. Bottom: image as processed to recover shadows and highlights.

Sample2.thumb.jpg.430ee9fefb9ce506e3a37e3a34ed6927.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Found a couple of images which could shed some light on DSLR quality.

First one, shot at ISO 3200 and processed in DxO PhotoLab 6. Zero noise!

DSC_04862048.thumb.jpg.447647f225d832b71013ae4dbc45bf56.jpg

Second one - to show what's hidden in digital images and would not be available at all in film.
Top: straight out of camera. Bottom: image as processed to recover shadows and highlights.

Sample2.thumb.jpg.430ee9fefb9ce506e3a37e3a34ed6927.jpg

That's incredible!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, saac said:

It is great to have the choice though. Even polaroid instant film is having a bit of a revival. 

Jim 

I went to a Saturn when I was in Dusseldorf (big tech chain like Currys in the UK) and they had NEW polaroids in their camera section!

Local London Camera Exchange near me stocks polaroid film too.

Normal negative and slides are also having a resurgence, but maybe not quite to the same level.

 

I also agree that digital sensors do allow for much more contortion of a scene, they're more scientific, easier to get results from, you get instant results etc etc.

But big budget films to this day get shot on celluloid, and there has to be a reason for that! medium-format (60mm) Kodak cine film costs thousands of US dollars per 5 minute roll, the hollywood DPs wouldn't push to buy that equipment if they didn't see value in it!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, pipnina said:

But big budget films to this day get shot on celluloid,

Are you sure about that?
"In May 1999 George Lucas challenged the supremacy of the movie-making medium of film for the first time by including footage filmed with high-definition digital cameras in Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. The digital footage blended seamlessly with the footage shot on film and he announced later that year he would film its sequels entirely on hi-def digital video. Also in 1999, digital projectors were installed in four theatres for the showing of The Phantom Menace. In June 2000, Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones began principal photography shot entirely using a Sony HDW-F900 camera as Lucas had previously stated. The film was released in May 2002."

"In 2009, Slumdog Millionaire became the first movie shot mainly in digital to be awarded the Academy Award for Best Cinematography. The second highest-grossing movie in the history of cinema, Avatar, not only was shot on digital cameras as well, but also made the main revenues at the box office no longer by film, but digital projection.

Major films shot on digital video overtook those shot on film in 2013. Since 2016 over 90% of major films were shot on digital video. As of 2017, 92% of films are shot on digital. Only 24 major films released in 2018 were shot on 35mm."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Spock said:

Are you sure about that?
"In May 1999 George Lucas challenged the supremacy of the movie-making medium of film for the first time by including footage filmed with high-definition digital cameras in Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. The digital footage blended seamlessly with the footage shot on film and he announced later that year he would film its sequels entirely on hi-def digital video. Also in 1999, digital projectors were installed in four theatres for the showing of The Phantom Menace. In June 2000, Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones began principal photography shot entirely using a Sony HDW-F900 camera as Lucas had previously stated. The film was released in May 2002."

"In 2009, Slumdog Millionaire became the first movie shot mainly in digital to be awarded the Academy Award for Best Cinematography. The second highest-grossing movie in the history of cinema, Avatar, not only was shot on digital cameras as well, but also made the main revenues at the box office no longer by film, but digital projection.

Major films shot on digital video overtook those shot on film in 2013. Since 2016 over 90% of major films were shot on digital video. As of 2017, 92% of films are shot on digital. Only 24 major films released in 2018 were shot on 35mm."

I am. The video i posted was for films shot in 2021. It might not be as popular, and is likely reserved for the films with budget to blow on millions of dollars worth of celluloid, but it's still being used. And they wouldn't use it if there wasn't SOME niche for it in filmmaking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pipnina said:

I went to a Saturn when I was in Dusseldorf (big tech chain like Currys in the UK) and they had NEW polaroids in their camera section!

Local London Camera Exchange near me stocks polaroid film too.

Normal negative and slides are also having a resurgence, but maybe not quite to the same level.

 

I also agree that digital sensors do allow for much more contortion of a scene, they're more scientific, easier to get results from, you get instant results etc etc.

But big budget films to this day get shot on celluloid, and there has to be a reason for that! medium-format (60mm) Kodak cine film costs thousands of US dollars per 5 minute roll, the hollywood DPs wouldn't push to buy that equipment if they didn't see value in it!

 

Photography is making a comeback in the school curriculum as well which is good to see. Last term I noticed one of my S3 pupils was using a Polaroid camera, he wasn't studying photography, just doing it for fun.  I had an old film Canon SLR that was gathering dust, I had been close to binning it a few times, so I past it onto him to see if he was interested. He was over the moon  with it and was soon getting on top of mastering exposure and aperture controls. I don't think wet film photography is something that I could go back to for the limited photography I do,  but I can see that it offers something that digital does not. In so much as any medium offers a different outcome in presentation then there will always be a place for its creative exploitation.  I think it is great that wet film not only survives but that it is being taken up by a new generation brought up in a digital world. 

Jim 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the pre-digital era I found every aspect of DSO astro photography hard, taking the picture was just one piece in an infernal jigsaw. If I ever get round to it I might try replicating the old days but with a twist, using my 1980s 8” OO F4 Schmidt Newtonian and Ricoh SLR but with a modern goto mount and guiding. It’s a big project though, after 20 years of being stored vertically in a damp loft, the araldite holding the secondary gave out and it crashed down onto the primary mirror and took a chunk out of that also.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tomato said:

Back in the pre-digital era I found every aspect of DSO astro photography hard, taking the picture was just one piece in an infernal jigsaw. If I ever get round to it I might try replicating the old days but with a twist, using my 1980s 8” OO F4 Schmidt Newtonian and Ricoh SLR but with a modern goto mount and guiding. It’s a big project though, after 20 years of being stored vertically in a damp loft, the araldite holding the secondary gave out and it crashed down onto the primary mirror and took a chunk out of that also.

That sounds like some project. You'd need to find an adapter to convert the old lens mount to a telescope thread for one! As for the mirrors, it depends a bit in where the damage is I guess? If it's close enough to the center on either mirror then in theory you can just paint black over the marks without any I'll affect. On the primary you could get away with that anywhere possibily? Else it's a matter of a whole recoat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

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

PSX_20240108_141627.thumb.jpg.44495d8502e8242161da87b2b25d58fd.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Nightfly said:

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

 

Is that a large format sheet? I'd love to know what your setup is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most circumstances it seems to me that digital is the hands down winner, but not in absolutely all. A well-made slide film image, seen projected, has a scale and intensity, a verisimilitude, a feeling, which digital doesn't have. It's like being under the night sky, only more so.  The digital images that I and others make go deeper, contain more information, etc etc - but a projected slide can have a little something else.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
typo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

In most circumstances it seems to me that digital is the hands down winner, but not in absolutely all. A well-made slide film image, seen projected, has a scale and intensity, a verisimilitude, a feeling, which digital doesn't have. It's like being under the night sky, only more so.  The digital images that I and others make go deeper, contain more information, etc etc - but a projected slide can have a little something else.

Olly

I shot a roll of Velvia 100 last year and although I butchered the exposure on most of the images I have to agree with your assessment 100%

Looking at one of the good slides I have placed on my flat panel is pretty magical. No manipulation required besides that which was baked into the emulsion at the factory.

I think when HDR tech catches up we'll be able to make a similar effect on a digital screen. I think velvia has a contract ratio of something like 3/4k:1 whereas a very good SDR digital screen has 1.2k:1, and looks washed out in comparison. I tried viewing my astro photos on the OLED TV but the peak brightness isn't there to make it pop, and the TV has a not-exactly-calibrated contrast curve which made my deep grey sky background black clipped which looked quite ugly.

A bit like how it took LCD screens a long time to truly surpass CRTs on all fronts, I think we still have a bit left to go before digital displays beat the last edge case holdouts of slide quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

In most circumstances it seems to me that digital is the hands down winner, but not in absolutely all. A well-made slide film image, seen projected, has a scale and intensity, a verisimilitude, a feeling, which digital doesn't have. It's like being under the night sky, only more so.  The digital images that I and others make go deeper, contain more information, etc etc - but a projected slide can have a little something else.

Olly

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. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pipnina said:

Is that a large format sheet? I'd love to know what your setup is!

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.

 

PSX_20230924_182805.thumb.jpg.a2754f3de5877829518db973068c5373.jpg

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what people are looking at with film. I used to use a variety of slides back in the day, including the very slow, very sharp Kodachrome 25. Looking at those images, my D500 is sharper with better resolution, has better colour, less noisy, more dynamic range, the ability to pull out several stops of shadow and highlights, and, all at... ISO 3200... That's eight stops better. Back then any kind of 'fast' film was very gritty to look at.

Plus a whole host of processing adjustments not available to slide film, or any other sort of film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too bad that there probably aren't many people who are both an astronomer and a hipster. That's the problem. I'd love it if a niche existed for diffuse DSO images on Portra 400 or LomoChrome Purple or something.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

I don't know what people are looking at with film. I used to use a variety of slides back in the day, including the very slow, very sharp Kodachrome 25. Looking at those images, my D500 is sharper with better resolution, has better colour, less noisy, more dynamic range, the ability to pull out several stops of shadow and highlights, and, all at... ISO 3200... That's eight stops better. Back then any kind of 'fast' film was very gritty to look at.

Plus a whole host of processing adjustments not available to slide film, or any other sort of film.

The journey is its own result with things like this, in my experience.  In a previous life I was an audio engineer.  CD-quality Digital audio is objectively far superior to vinyl and tape formats in all practical applications.  It has a higher dynamic range, greater frequency range, is repeatable, never wears out, etc.  However I still have a collection of vinyl records?  Why?  Because there's a ritual and process to it that just isn't the same with digital formats.  I also have film cameras for the same reason.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nightfly said:

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. 

 

A truly enjoyable post to read.

There is nothing odd about your enthusiasm. People in dozens of fields enjoy preserving old technologies and old skills. At one extreme, I have a friend who, in association with professional archaeologists, recreates stone age tools and garments, strictly in accordance with what research shows to have been the original methods. In the summer, local villages put on fêtes in which old farm machinery is presented in working displays. In a couple of hours I'll be off down the road to watch a stage of the Historic Monte Carlo Rally. Does anybody care that a modern rally car is way faster than a sixties Alpine?  Your rig is beautiful and I can fully understand the enjoyment you must derive from handling it and getting the best from it.

The result is not the point. The doing is the point, as GrumpiusMaximus says.  Even in the digital AP word, there are already opportunities to be 'old school.' I post process mostly in Photoshop because I like being in Photoshop. As it stands, I can get better results in Photoshop but the day may come when I'd get better results elsewhere. If I don't enjoy working in a newer environment I'll either carry n in Ps or stop. I just don't want to spend my afternoons in Pixinsight because it's not a place I like.

Olly

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Software for processing digital images is continually improving. I've been using DxO Photolab for quite a while - I don't get on with Lightroom or Photoshop. The latest version of Photolab has noise reduction so good I've been able to 'rescue' my old D70 6mp images. Despite being only 3008x2000 px they look more than acceptable on my 1440p monitor. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a TV programme discussing the advent of digital photography (late 1980s I think) where it was resolutely stated that pixel counts would never match the grains in a film emulsion…

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.