lex_jenkins Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 I'd say the fact that Adams said "Moonrise" was one of the most difficult-to-print negatives he ever made had more to do with it. It was a rushed exposure, less than ideal negative (by his high standards) and required highly skilled printers to produce that image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgwerner Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Jonas writes: "This sounds like a fun experiment, but aren't IR films pretty grainy, esp in the IR range and most celestial objects will still have stronger radiation in the visible range, meaning that maybe scattering from atmospheric particles may still swamp any celestial sources even if everything <750 nm or whatever is taken out." Konica IR was pretty sharp, especially if it was processed in Acutol or Aculux. Too bad it was discontinued. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ole_tjugen Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Next clear day, I'll put a sheet of MACO IR 820 in my LF camera, put a fast lens and an IR filter on, and make a long exposure with mostly sky. That might show something. I'll let you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flaviosganzerla Posted September 16, 2005 Author Share Posted September 16, 2005 We are waiting Ole... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now