ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waning Gibbous 73.6%
|
|
16-10-2005, 05:22 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 115
|
|
Does Anybody use film anymore??
Just one (1) question, does anyone use film for any astrophotgraphy anymore?
or has everybody just moved on
|
16-10-2005, 06:00 PM
|
|
Astrolounge
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: monbulk-vic
Posts: 2,010
|
|
l still do a bit of 35mm photography but it is very time consuming and very hit and miss, it requires a lot of perserverence and a willingness to waste a lot of film until you get it right, the biggest problem is finding a good processor that understands astro photography.
|
16-10-2005, 06:08 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 33,168
|
|
Believe it or not we had a posting about this issue some time back. true there are more people on here with digital, but there are people who still use film.
but why would you?
|
16-10-2005, 06:10 PM
|
|
Astrolounge
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: monbulk-vic
Posts: 2,010
|
|
a masochistic streak helps
|
16-10-2005, 06:23 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 33,168
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mick pinner
a masochistic streak helps
|
|
16-10-2005, 08:30 PM
|
|
avandonk
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
|
|
I was doing astrophotography in 1968 when I worked at Kodak.The printing systems were set for a blue sky,pink faces and green grass.The only saviour was slide,but,too slow.Ok then all run to Technical Pan (hypered).I used to make it the day I wanted to use it.Weather and all other impediments,it was very difficult!
The current digital revolution,and this is what it really is!It is wonderful. Instant image,instant viewing,fix variable.and try again and repeat!Keep this up all night and you to can end up with an incredible image!
If not repeat the next night.
Bert
If you want if I can find them show film pics from long ago.They are not very good compared to what is attainable now.
Bert
|
17-10-2005, 08:33 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,913
|
|
What's the current B&W
With the demise of 2415 what's the prefered B&W film??? Although I've a couple of CCD cameras I'd still like to try some long exposures with B&W guided with the trusty ST-4.
|
20-10-2005, 08:16 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 115
|
|
I just that I was thinking of using film rather than forking out $X on a new CCD or DSLR because my dad has a old film SLR sitting from his old photography days
|
20-10-2005, 08:44 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,033
|
|
I wish digital photography meant a digital alternative to film and not the camera, i.e., you'd load a sensor array + memory in your 35mm SLR camera instead of film when you didn't want to use film. Film still beats digital in many situations (but astrophotography is probably not one of them).
|
20-10-2005, 08:49 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 115
|
|
Oh, well more thinking to do...........
It's hurts
|
21-10-2005, 02:26 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 442
|
|
I've used 35mm film for shots of the moon without any problems. I plan on taking a few longer exposures one day soon but I'm not expecting too much, just doing it for practice while I figure out what DSLR to buy. I think you should make the most of what you've got, and if thats a 35mm SLR give it a go, there's been quite a few good shots taken on 35mm posted here. Just be careful what film you use, some will turn green after a minute or so. I've heard Kodak Ektachrome 200 or Fuji Provia 400f (both slide film) are good but it'd pay to do a bit of research. I've bought a roll of each but probably won't get through them this side of christmas so I won't be able to give you any feedback. For short exposures like the moon almost any cheap negative or slide film would do.
|
21-10-2005, 02:38 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 442
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss
I wish digital photography meant a digital alternative to film and not the camera, i.e., you'd load a sensor array + memory in your 35mm SLR camera instead of film when you didn't want to use film. Film still beats digital in many situations (but astrophotography is probably not one of them).
|
I was thinking the exact same thing a few years back. Wouldn't that be good....
|
21-10-2005, 08:16 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,913
|
|
OLD SLR conversion to CCD
Funny you mention that. There was a company in the US selling a CCD add-on for Canon cameras which had the electronics in a package similar to a film canister with the "tail" holding the CCD chip. Just had to drop it into the camera!!!!
I use OM1 gear so I asked them if they intended doing the same for Olympus, their answer was that Canon's were the "initial target product".
When I tried to follow up later ( probably two years ago now) they had been "bought out" and were reviewing their strategy.
I'm of the opinion that they may have been smothered to ensure new Digital camera's had the market to themselves!!! Still think it would have been a great idea when you consider all the SLR's that are still out there, in working nick.
Maybe we need to revive the idea..... what about gluing a Toucam body to the back of an existing camera??? etc etc
|
21-10-2005, 03:25 PM
|
|
on the highway to Hell
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 2,623
|
|
The idea of a interchangable mediums is a reality in some medium format film cameras - some models are available with the option of a "digital back" or the film back - here is an example of one model http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...67853?v=glance how good they are i have no idea.
Myself and some friends still use film on occasion, I have a canon 350D, nikon cp 5700, nikon cp 4500 - but the only cameras we have quality prime/fixed lenses for so far are our old pentax 35mm film cameras (we find zoom lenses not great for astrophotography) and to match the quiver of lenses in quality for the 350D dslr would take a few thousand dollars to say the least - will get there eventually tho
also when conditions are tough (ie heavy dew, dusty, frigid whatever) I am not rich or brave enough to risk my $1500+ 350d just yet (i use it for normal photography too) although i am sure it is pretty tough - so will still use the old film cameras for some of our wide field astro work for a little while
EDIT: note:we are into widefield astrophotography primarily - our guiding mount and set up is not up to prime focus work imo - plus i wouldnt want to do that manually anyway - i wouldnt bother doing 35mm film @ prime focus either - not worth it now
Last edited by fringe_dweller; 21-10-2005 at 03:50 PM.
|
01-11-2005, 03:49 PM
|
|
Spam Hunter
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oberon NSW
Posts: 14,337
|
|
I'm basically in a similar boat. I have a couple of Olympus OM-1s (one has a dud light meter so its a prime candidate for astro work!) as well as an Olympus C5060WZ digital.
Until such time as I get myself a notebook/laptop and a CCD astro camera, I'm basically playing with both the OM-1 and the C5060. The advantages of digital while you are learning can't be overstated. It is great to be able to take multitude of shots and experiment to see what works. Dud digipics don't cost much really...
But despite all the pros for digital cameras in astro work, if it was me, and all I had available was a film camera, I'd use it. It might be less convenient, and cost more in consumables (film) but there are good lessons to learn which will flatten the learning curve when you do finally go digital.
Al.
|
01-11-2005, 03:58 PM
|
|
~Dust bunny breeder~
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
|
|
astronomy.com has an interesting article on 35mm astro pics. you should search there.
I just bought a canon eos3000n, but its not for astro pics (tho i might dabble from time to time )
|
02-11-2005, 02:02 PM
|
|
on the highway to Hell
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 2,623
|
|
The OM-1's are beautiful old astrocamera's - perfect for the job, lots of nice lenses for em, many manual shutter speeds, other than bulb - couple of mates have 'em - but one thing we like about the old pentax's - we use mg's/mv's ect. no K1000's - they are so blinkin light (about half the weight of an OM-1 and about a quarter the weight of old minoltas/Nikons, which of course pentax has always used in its marketing since the world began!
- one thing we really like about our old fixed lenes that we use on the old pentax 35mm film bodies (as opposed to using zooms) - is just whack 'em on infinity and your in focus! no laptops/mainframes/hartmanns/science degree needed :-) and the position is hard up in one direction so easy to check without even looking (of course you should always test that your infinity is correct with daylight shots on a wall or something - just to be sure - but ours all worked exactly on the infinity setting as is)
Last edited by fringe_dweller; 02-11-2005 at 02:15 PM.
|
02-11-2005, 05:01 PM
|
|
~Dust bunny breeder~
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
|
|
cam across this really interesting product for 35mm users.
http://www.side.com/
there is also a product called e-film that does the same thing.
interesting... turns your 35mm into a 10mp dslr!
|
02-11-2005, 05:10 PM
|
|
~Dust bunny breeder~
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
|
|
|
02-11-2005, 06:20 PM
|
|
Supernova Searcher
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambroon Queensland Australia
Posts: 9,317
|
|
The site only gives you a story but nothing else???
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 11:22 PM.
|
|