Film-based astrophotography is now history

[pipnina]

11 minutes ago, tomato said:

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…

I'm not so sure about this horseless carriage business either, sounds like a fad to me! 🤣

23 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. 

 

I've just had a proper look through your Flickr and I have to say your collection of BW film images, not to mention the astro ones, are simply inspiring.

I am still early on in my film astro attempts (despite working on it for a year now, cursed weather!) but having poured over datasheets it seems either Ilford Delta 400 or Fomapan 400 would be the best choices for astro work despite their high reciprocity failure, simply because they are the rare black and white films that have the deeper red sensitivity for Halpha.

I can imagine Acros/Acros II being pretty good in that it's fine grain and has no reciprocity failure up to 120s and only 1/2 a stop is lost afterwards, but if we factor in the removal of reciprocity from your 60 minute image (45min?) and then take into account the improved sensitivity of Foma400, meaning it would need about 20-ish minutes of exposure, and then factor in my estimate for Foma400's reciprocity failure factor (roughly MT^1.454) we come to about 15 minutes saved in exposure time, at the cost of some grain, but in doing so we also gain a lot of hydrogen sensitivity which Acros lacks entirely. The difference would be even more stark (I intend to verify once weather improves) with Delta400 as it can reach 500 iso in microphen vs Foma400's 320, and has a lower reciprocity factor of 1.41 while (if the datasheet is accurate) still having Ha sensitivity.

Not intended as a lecture, but I am curious at your process and reasoning, maybe you leave out hydrogen purely for artistic purposes?

Thanks for your time.

Here's a negative (Foma400) I am not yet ready to scan properly and as such can only provide a simple phone scan. But I have high hopes for it.

Foma400 in microphen, 16m at f3.5, Bronica ETRS with Zenzanon 150mm pe.

[Nightfly]

5 hours ago, pipnina said:

Not intended as a lecture, but I am curious at your process and reasoning, maybe you leave out hydrogen purely for artistic purposes?

Thanks for your time.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ollypenrice]

Another little thought: I have two volumes of Kepple and Sanner's Night Sky Guide, probably the definitive visual observing guides. They have plenty of  hand drawn charts and monochrome film astrophotos but no digital images - and I wouldn't want to see any in there. They would just be inappropriate.

Olly

[Nightfly]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Another little thought: I have two volumes of Kepple and Sanner's Night Sky Guide, probably the definitive visual observing guides. They have plenty of  hand drawn charts and monochrome film astrophotos but no digital images - and I wouldn't want to see any in there. They would just be inappropriate.

Olly

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.  

 

 

[Paul M]

I agree with much of the sentiment above, film is a craft, a craft I never mastered beyond a few home processed rolls of slide film. My father had a dark room and processed his own colour prints. So I have a childhood fondness of film photography.

And looking through @Nightfly's Flickr content, it doesn't get old. I almost get dewy eyed looking over images such as this one of Orion. It just delivers, whilst gently belying the effort that went into producing it!

 

[tomato]

4 hours ago, Nightfly said:

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.  

 

 

I really like Burnham’s Celestial Handbook, I received all three volumes as a gift back in the 1980’s when I was grappling with film Astro photography.  I still love studying the monochrome photographs, it’s a wonderful record of a different and significant Astronomical era.

[Nightfly]

16 hours ago, Paul M said:

I agree with much of the sentiment above, film is a craft, a craft I never mastered beyond a few home processed rolls of slide film. My father had a dark room and processed his own colour prints. So I have a childhood fondness of film photography.

And looking through @Nightfly's Flickr content, it doesn't get old. I almost get dewy eyed looking over images such as this one of Orion. It just delivers, whilst gently belying the effort that went into producing it!

 

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.  

 

 

[Nightfly]

On 06/02/2024 at 17:56, tomato said:

I really like Burnham’s Celestial Handbook, I received all three volumes as a gift back in the 1980’s when I was grappling with film Astro photography.  I still love studying the monochrome photographs, it’s a wonderful record of a different and significant Astronomical era.

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.  

 

 

 

[Albir phil]

On 22/06/2023 at 00:44, NGC 1502 said:

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😁

I remember film photography at the time I was using Hasalblad 2.25 square.Now they were somthing else. Wish I could try the new digital Hasalblad on a dso, but will have to wait for a nice lotto win for that, but I can dream🤞

[Albir phil]

On 05/02/2024 at 19:45, tomato said:

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…

Yeah they also said TV would never be popular 🤔

[Swoop1]

On 01/07/2023 at 23:17, 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!

 

To my eye, celluloid film is far better for background gradient. GHoing to the cinema to watch a Sci Fi film, the stepping down from bright to dark on a passing space ship for example is very obvious whereas well managed celluloid has no noticeable gradient.

I used both film and digital cameras professionally on covert surveillance work and public order evidence gathering.

The benefit of instant result checking was a major plus for digital as was only having to shove in another card on a bad day at a protest or football match. Trying to load a fresh film whilst wearing double layer fire retardent gloves, cowering in a shallow doorway or hiding behind a shield whilst looking through a very fogged up visor (anti mist treatments are only so effective) and having bricks, bottles, petrol bombs etc landing all around was certainly an experience and aquired skill- and that was only training. Follow that with hours (or sometimes days) of paperwork once you receive back the product of sometimes 30 to 40 36 exposure film canisters to sort out the correct exhibit handling procedures and collating the product with audio commentary and recordings from radio transmissions etc.

I'd do wet film evidence gathering work again tomorrow though, given the chance. A sadly declining skill as most EGT seems to be video these days.

Sorry- a bit of a diversion from film based astrophotography.

[pipnina]

1 hour ago, Swoop1 said:

To my eye, celluloid film is far better for background gradient. GHoing to the cinema to watch a Sci Fi film, the stepping down from bright to dark on a passing space ship for example is very obvious whereas well managed celluloid has no noticeable gradient.

I used both film and digital cameras professionally on covert surveillance work and public order evidence gathering.

The benefit of instant result checking was a major plus for digital as was only having to shove in another card on a bad day at a protest or football match. Trying to load a fresh film whilst wearing double layer fire retardent gloves, cowering in a shallow doorway or hiding behind a shield whilst looking through a very fogged up visor (anti mist treatments are only so effective) and having bricks, bottles, petrol bombs etc landing all around was certainly an experience and aquired skill- and that was only training. Follow that with hours (or sometimes days) of paperwork once you receive back the product of sometimes 30 to 40 36 exposure film canisters to sort out the correct exhibit handling procedures and collating the product with audio commentary and recordings from radio transmissions etc.

I'd do wet film evidence gathering work again tomorrow though, given the chance. A sadly declining skill as most EGT seems to be video these days.

Sorry- a bit of a diversion from film based astrophotography.

Impressive nonetheless

Sort of surprised if you'd shoot so many rolls in one go that you didn't end up with a camera that had one of these bad boy backs on it haha

[Mr Spock]

Give me modern technology any day.

Nostalgia belongs in the past 

[Mr Spock]

I've just had a look at slide film prices v the amount I've spent on software for the number of digital photos I have.

Software purchased - about £500 over the years.
Equivalent 36 exposure film and developing cost - £20,000.00

[Bugdozer]

On 05/02/2024 at 10:03, Mr Spock said:

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. 

My recent infrared moon shot in the Lunar Imaging section was taken on a D70. They can still hold their own with good processing. 

[Swoop1]

2 hours ago, pipnina said:

Impressive nonetheless

Sort of surprised if you'd shoot so many rolls in one go that you didn't end up with a camera that had one of these bad boy backs on it haha

That would have worked for the evidence gathering as the film cameras were Nikon F3's. Beautiful bits of kit to use and tough as old boots.

Marry that to an old school 400w plus Norman flash kit (big 1-2 kg battery and control pack and 4-5 inch polished parabolic dish reflector, getting good images of distant subjects at night was fun (full power flash made things identifiable at 100m or more)

[Nightfly]

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.

 

 

 

Edited February 10 by Nightfly

[Bugdozer]

That's a wonderful image. Superia 100 was a great emulsion with very little grain to it and it was popular among all photographers for its colour rendering, as you say. I have used it for some untracked shots of the sky, but not at that large format. 

[pipnina]

6 hours ago, Nightfly said:

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.

 

 

 

 

To what extent do you process a mosaic like this? I would need to do complex things like background extraction for wide field work like this normally.

I assume this was with your dual pentax 67 rig, what lenses and aperture did you use, and if you stopped down did you use special stop rings instead of the in-lens blades?

It's certainly better than a lot of DSLR images I've taken, albeit those were on an old camera at APS-C format so about 9x less capturing area per exposure.

If I had skies as dark as yours presumably are I'd be most pleased too haha.

Edited February 10 by pipnina

[Nightfly]

1 hour ago, pipnina said:

To what extent do you process a mosaic like this? I would need to do complex things like background extraction for wide field work like this normally.

I assume this was with your dual pentax 67 rig, what lenses and aperture did you use, and if you stopped down did you use special stop rings instead of the in-lens blades?

It's certainly better than a lot of DSLR images I've taken, albeit those were on an old camera at APS-C format so about 9x less capturing area per exposure.

If I had skies as dark as yours presumably are I'd be most pleased too haha.

 

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.

 

 

 

[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.

 

Edited February 13 by Nightfly
Updated content

[Swoop1]

That is an absolutely stonking image @Nightfly! Thanks for sharing it.

Edited February 13 by Swoop1

[pipnina]

Just got my first roll of Kodak Ektar developed in 35mm format. I took some astro shots and while i can't get them quite right I feel they're still worth sharing!

First is this star trail shot from a local beach. 24mm lens so pretty wide angle. I can't get the shadows to stop looking red though. I don't have a proper negative scanning software so I am just trying to fix it manually. All I did here was colour balance and some contrast enhance. Was about a 40-50m exposure.

 

 

This was a tracked shot of orion with my 50mm lens. My scanning job again seems less than perfect with it being a bit out of focus. Nonetheless barnard's loop, M42, flame, horsehead, rosette, and SH2-264. I dare say either my brain is wishfully thinking or the witch head is in there too!

I provide it here both with only contrast and colour balance improvements and with a pixinsight gradient removal, to show how the film natively recorded the scene as well as what I was able to extract from it easily. Even the new pix gradient tool didn't tackle this image perfectly, I am not experienced enough with it yet to get perfect results.

Finally I have one with the very nice 135mm f3.5 canon FD lens. Aside from a bit of blue fringing this lens handles astro very nicely. Nice detail starting to show up in M42 and the horse's head itself becomes visible as well as some veins in the flame. I couldn't get the image to look neutral in pix so I had to settle for it either looking blue or orange... Not sure why!

I intend to try shots like this again but with my medium format kit. Ektar proves to be a very capable film stock for astro and the raw sensitivity to h-alpha puts any unmodified DSLR or mirrorless to shame.

My RisingCam 571 is still the much more sensible choice of course. But I am having a lot of fun with film anyway!

[Beulah]

That's was no mean feat. There's something so 'warm' and nostalgic with these images - can really appreciate the challenges of capturing these objects with film.