Is anyone sitll interested in film astrophotography?

<p>This is a question I've been wanting to ask for awhile.<br /> Like the title says, is anyone still interested in film astrophotography? When I was first getting into photo/astro stuff several years ago, the Nikon F series and Canon F-1s were still the recommended cameras for their long exposure capabilities and modularity (6x right angle finders, cross hair reticle screens, ect). Then the Canon 10d came out and film cameras seemed dead overnight because there was finally a cheap, low noise, large chip camera.</p>

<p>All that said, this post just comes down to two questions:<br /> 1) Are there still people doing film astrophptography even though this is one area where it is universally accepted that film is inferior to digital?<br /> 2) Do people still believe that a manual 35mm camera is the best starting too for this specialized hobby if one has no prior experience?</p>

<p>My thoughts are that film still has a very small part to play in the field. To this day even though I have access to DSLRs, my astrophotogaphy technique is still split 50/50 film digital it seems; I still think film* has uses in wide field imaging. I also think that it still could be a legitimate learning tool since everyone starts off shooting wide feild anyway...</p>

<p>So yeah, what do you guys think>?<br /> [i know this is somewhat of an out there question - probably better suited to an astronomy forum, but I'm not a member of an astronomy form so whatever. It's still a photography question : ) ]<br>

*(read: Kodak E200, however has anyone tried Ektar 100 for astro? )</p>

<p>I still use film and an old medium format TLR. Fuji provia 100 hundreed is my film of choice, I'm one of the few left overs from the days of yor that still hasn't gone digital!</p>

<p>Gary, you're doing astrophotography with a TLR?</p>

<p>Michael, no, I can't see much use in film for astrophotography any more. The focusing aids you talk about (6x finder scopes, reticles, etc) pale compared to liveview focusing. The ability to easily combine a sequence of relatively short exposures into one long exposure means that:</p>

<ul>

<li> "culling" the sharpest frames noticeably reduces atmospheric blurring.</li>

<li>automatic alignment eliminates tracking errors in your mount.</li>

<li>you have no problems with "events" such as passing planes or visiting park rangers, that could ruin a long exposure on film </li>

</ul>

<p>Hi, Michael -</p>

<p>Yup, I have two OM-1n's that I acquired many years ago for that purpose. The problem now is finding true custom labs that can turn out the end print, from film to film paper with a darkroom involved from start to finish. Now very few will do that, most will only scan and deliver a digital print. Hmmm, wonder if they would accept a scan and print of cash, when settling the bill? Might as well just go digital myself, but I still have a preference for film. And yes, I am old, it's hard to give up what we're comfortable with.</p>

<p>Haven't tried the new Ektar, but have heard good reports of it. Cheers.</p>

<p>Patrick </p>

<p>I have some really fond memories of holding and staring through the large film negative transparencies to try to identify stars, galaxies, etc. Since those were 8x10 and larger, I suspect they originated with one of the large telescopes. Only one guy I ever knew had a clock drive and did star photography, but it was film and I don't recall the camera.<br>

I've not tried it with my digital. May have to go outside to play some starry night.</p>

<p>As you mentioned, once I bought a 10D years ago I only used it and subsequent DSLRs for astrophotography. Recently though I've had a very strong desire to set up my F-1 and take some night-sky shots to see what I'll get, so I'm planning to do that very soon.</p>

<p>Have done some with old Minolta SLR's. If, you want to see some excellent photos done by cameras from 35 to Pentax 67's and even 4x5. Go to <a href="http://www.cloudynights.com">www.cloudynights.com</a> click on "Forum" then scroll down to "Film Astrophotography".</p>

<p>Patrick: I have used Om-1s for astro work myself and they are very nice cameras... you have to love how lightweight they are - less torquing of the OTA! Your issue with labs and printing is exactly why I only shoot slide film when doing astro. It reduces the chance for the lab to mess anything up - just process my film and send me the roll back! Going beyond that, there are very few films it seems that are any good for astro these days, save E200, however I have not done many tests due to expense. Ektar seems inciting because of it's fine grain and near peak sensitivity @ 650nm.</p>

<p>Andy: I got into astronomy and photography congruently. The first camera I bought was an F-1 specifically with the intent to shoot astro - and I still use it for that purpose occasionally. That said, i would encourage you to use it again! I'm sure you know better than anyone how much better the F-1 finder is for focusing than the 10d!</p>

<p>Jack: Funny you bring up the P67. I am actually getting one here soon with the intention of hooking it up to my Astro-Physics refractor for astro and terrestrial use. Should be an interesting setup! Also, I have lurked on CloudyNights before... dont know why I never joined their community though. I figure i'm members of too many forums already!</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses everyone!</p>

<p>I missed this thread since I rarely leave the Medium Form forum...but I have to contribute now!</p>

<p>Yes, I use film *exclusively* for astrophotography, save for some afocal lunar type stuff that is best done with my digital P&S. I all but stopped using 35mm film for astrophotography since 1992, when I got my first Mamiya 645 1000s and thus got into medium format. Now I shoot a couple of Mamiya 645s and a Mamiya Universal (6x9), simultaneously. Been through a few 6x6s as well. I've a 4x5 monorail lurking in the background too...</p>

<p>Like many others, I primarily shoot E200, and some expired Konica Centuria 400; although I have also experimented with other films, and will be trying Ektar 100 as soon as I get the vanishingly rare combination of a clear night and free time.</p>

<p>One reason for film to stay in the game is that it (E200 anyway) offers red sensitivity that you simply cannot get with a stock DSLR. Despite this, I would not say that 35mm film has much of a place in astrophotography anymore, now that there are full-frame DSLRs. But medium format film still has its own unique niche - 6x9 easily scans to 40 megapixels of real resolution, about double that of the latest full-frame DSLRs. The demands on lens quality are less severe, and in any case medium format has some superb wide-angle designs; wide angle shots are a weakness of DSLRs. My MF cameras do not require batteries out in the field, and you can view the transparencies on a lightbox or in analogue projection - magical forms of high-resolution viewing that digital capture just can't provide.</p>

<p>I won't deny the convenience of DSLRs, their ability to play the percentages game with tracking and gremlins, their instant feedback, their fantastic sensitivity, their easy calibration. Their small chips and high resolution are naturally suited to getting closeups of beautiful celestial targets. They make everything a lot easier, and there are people taking great astrophotos now who would never have done so with film, or who would have given up after a few attempts.</p>

<p>But DSLRs have no romance, no history, no feel, no modularity, like the great medium format cameras and lenses. There's also the question of timing your move - the DSLR technology escalator is still going up, albeit more slowly, while film & MF film cameras are at a stable peak. Moving too soon can mean rapid obsolescence. I think that the time is right, about now. But I don't think I'll ever give up shooting film as well - the two would co-exist side by side.</p>

<p>What I would really love is to be able to afford a 645 digital back to use with all my Mamiya 645 lenses. The 36 x 48 mm backs are only a little smaller than 41.5 x 56 mm film. They also cost a fortune. (Well, I can <em>afford</em> it...the problems are the marital imprimatur, and the little use it would get). So, I'll probably have to compromise and get an EOS 5Dii as my "digital back" - I already have an M645-EOS lens adapter - at least that way, I get to keep using my excellent lenses. I'm sure the DSLR thing would grow on me, but romance? Nah, I can't see it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Winter vista, 6x9 Mamiya Universal, 100/2.8 at f4, E200, 20 minutes</p><div></div>

<p>Detail from the pic above</p><div></div>

<p>Winter vista, 6x9 Mamiya Universal, 100/2.8 at f4, E200, 20 minutes</p><div>[ATTACH=full]943668[/ATTACH]</div>

very intriguing. what is your set up like? i sent you a message on your profile page... feel free to send me a message

I have a 10” Dob.,and recently ordered a 2” adapter ring for the DSLR. Moon shots only, I expect, as it will not track.

Been thinking about a manual tracking hinge mount for the tripod for a while now.

The film cameras will need a different adapter, but I can see myself trying that in the future when I make the move to darker skies.

You're asking a question of a post made 9 years ago.

 

I have a small, Optron Sky Tracker mount, with a 2.5# limit (5# with counterweight). This is good enough for a mirrorless camera and prime lens (Sony A7Rii) or a small telescope. It fits on a standard tripod, and offers both sidereal and lunar RA tracking. I added a separate panning base to speed alignment, along with a leveling head. Optron also makes a heavy duty German mount (see bellow) which will hold a much larger telescope or a medium format camera. The version below has a computerized tracker and locator.

 

iOptron SmartEQ Pro Equatorial Mount Kit with Hard Case 3200-HC

 

Nine years ago people were arguing whether digital would ever replace film. That ship has sailed, for amateurs and professionals alike. Digital sensors do not suffer recijprocity law failure, so exposures are linear, and the results can be processed electronically. As romantic as MF film might seem, it can't match even a 24 MP digital sensor. Gone are the days when we had to expose film to ammonia fumes to sensitize it for deep space objects.

 

I'm hoping to do more of this, but it's hard with the amount of light pollution from Chicago and suburbs. I was in heaven for a few days in central Washington, at least after 11:45 (end of astronomical twilight).

Hubble raised the standard.....;)

There is still no substitute for actually wandering among the stars and stumbling across the occasional Messier object.

A bit of Eric Satie in the earbuds, the ethereal mist washes over in a way no photo can touch.

 

Capturing the dark night sky for yourself in a photo is enjoyably complimentary.

At the risk of telling. you something you already know, there are two smart phone apps I consider indispensable. The first is Photopills, which gives you very precise information about the position of the sun and moon, sunrise, sunset, etc., based on your current GPS location. The second is "Night Sky", wich also uses GPS positioning and the internal compass to show positions of various astronomical features in the sky. The data can be superimposed on real-time images to give a virtual reality effect.

 

I used both of these apps to determine the onset of really dark skies (end of astronomical twighlight) and the position of the Milky Way relative to an horizon which I could not actually see at the time. I used a 10 second exposure, which is short enough to avoid star trails with a wide angle lens, but still gathers about 250 times as much light as the naked eye. Placing the iPhone flat against the LCD screen of the camera made an effective pointing device in lieu of the useless viewfinder.

 

I also use a rather nerdish red headlamp to see what I'm doing without destroying what little night vision I have.

 

1518500_e1a8dea934b43df85b309d3accd362ca.jpg

 

Satie is certainly ethereal. Very appropriate. Holst is a little in your face. Mozart is motivational - mostly Allegro (trans., walking pace), distracts you from the mosquitos.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

Thanks a bunch.

Going on the IPad.

I use a tiny red single LED button light to keep my rods sensitive......

Edited July 29, 2018 by Moving On

Thanks for the "Night Sky" app suggestion Ed, I have added it to my iPhone collection, which includes Photopills and a few others. Another great app is SkySafari. I use the SkySafariPlus version on my iPad to drive my 8" Meade LX200 SCT. When the telescope is properly aligned, SkySafari will point it to any chosen celestial object or set of co-ordinates.

 

I have dabbled a bit in astrophotography, but getting serious about it requires way too much (night)time and money.

One application for film in astrophotography that still makes sense is for long exposure wide-angle photos of star trails. Just set the shutter on "time", click the shutter, set an alarm clock, and come back to close the shutter sometime before dawn. This is a lot easier than stitching together many multiple exposures using a DSLR, although there is now software available to do this.

 

A good example of this technique is "Star Trails over Camel Thorn", by Art Wolfe. Startrails over Deadvlei | Art Wolfe Stock Photography 888-973-0011

Wolfe explains in his book "The New Art of Photographing Nature" that the photo, taken in the Namibian desert, is a composite of two exposures on Fujichrome Velvia; first exposure f:2.8 for 1/60s in daylight using a neutral density filter and polarizer, and the second at night, f:2.8 for 8 hours. I read somewhere besides the book, that he could not stay with the camera at night because of the threat of lions.

I read somewhere besides the book, that he could not stay with the camera at night because of the threat of lions.

Whistling “Wimoweh” doesn’t work??......

Only works if you sing it in Swahili with no foreign accent.

A film camera is well suited to long exposures, partly because there is very little power draw while the shutter is held open. Digital cameras may have a maximum time limit imposed by firmware, but apparently the A7Rii and A7Riii do not. I read of 4 minute exposures, which would not produce the star circles you describe. You would get hot pixel noise, which is only partially removed by the camera, even if long exposure compensation is turned OFF (recommended).

 

I have a passive remote with a locking release button, which connects to an USB port on the cameraI suspect the larger battery of the A9 and A7Riii cameras would hold up an hour or two, maybe longer. These cameras have two USB ports, and the second USB port can be used with an external battery at the same time. A pocket-sized 20,000 MAH battery will run the camera over 8 hours with the display on. During a time exposure, the display is turned off, so much less power is used. Most stacking software can use dark frames (same duration and temperature as the main exposure) to subtract thermal and hot pixel noise. Light Frames compensate for vignetting, and are only needed for photogrammetry.

 

In the Chicago area, even a 10 second exposure will result in a bright sky. I didn't need to use anything longer than 10 seconds in the Cascades, since the Milky Way,, at magnitude 5, is easily captured. Both mountain lions and black bear are indigenous to the area. I was mostly prepared, but considering the townspeople's reaction to shooting one of their furry creatures, it might be better to get eaten ;) There were a few rustlings, but no eyes shining back at my red headlight.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Ed_Ingold