Was photographic film better

[leon]

Raymo, I happen to agree with you, I, as you, and I'm sure others see it over and over again, heavily processed images which really start to look more like art work rather than a digital image, straight out of the camera.

I think I actually posted on this subject a couple of years ago, and if I recall it wasn't received that well, cant really remember. to be honest.

Leon

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

Star trails were very nice with film.

Three images with a 4" F 5.6 achro refractor. Actually it was a "telephoto" lens but same thing. All taken on the 28th July 2000. Some of my last film pics before I went to video.

M7, 15 minutes on Fuji 800. Still in Scorpius IC4628 Prawn nebula, 20 minutes Fuji 800. NGC3532 10 minutes Fuji 800. For some reason film was more tolerant of achro refractors. I got a shock when I went digital with the amount of CA that digital shows with an achro.

[LightningNZ (Cam)]

Nice photos guys. I used to use Fuji 1600 with very pleasing results, a little green maybe but rich colours anyway.

The Kodak Ektachrome 800 was a great film IIRC. I also took some shots with Konica 3200 b/w and pushed it 6400. Some shots were okay but I was never that thrilled with my black n whites, they looked lifeless.

One thing to remember with film was the no one ever stacked images, so what you took was what you got. Without hyper-sensitising, film sucked after the first minute of exposure, so collecting today's 4-hours worth of subs, let alone mega-data (multiple days worth of imaging), just didn't exist.

A lot of people these days have too much "processing" power at their fingertips and they push images too hard. Linearity goes out the door, or they do things like equalisation that has no darkroom equivalent. The light doesn't get any respect.

Of course there are some great photographers here who create some beautiful works too, which are decent representations of what is really out there - though everyone it seems wants to go deeper, and show more (myself included). We have the capability now, so where do we draw the line?

[raymo]

Ripper job Kevin. Great stuff.
I've just remembered the name of the 25 and 1000 ISO film that I mentioned earlier in the thread.
It was Ektar, absolutely razor sharp.
raymo

[doppler (Rick)]

A bit of nostalgia for us old timers hey. Here are some scaned photo's of Comet Hyakutake 50mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.8 fugi 400 film, piggybacked on my 8" cave scope.

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

The disadvantage of hypering colour film was a colour shift. Another trick we used to use was developing positive slide film as a negative. Only a couple of labs would do it as it needed a "dip and dunk" developing machine, otherwise it would mess up their chemicals. I used to develop slides and B+W negs in the darkroom. Colour negs were a bit too fussy for me temperature wise but I did print them.

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

They're awesome Rick!

[doppler (Rick)]

Thanks Kevin my favorite is the one with the shooting star (I missed it as I was looking through the guide scope, but I did notice the flash). I think the best film I used was hypered fuji 1600 transperency film. We used to get it posted from interstate, timed for friday delivery so we could go to our dark sky site 120 kms away for a weekend shoot.

[raymo]

Warms the cockles of my heart Rick. Splendid shots.
raymo

[Pinwheel (Doug)]

Well I think my point is right, film was better, I don't know if any of you noticed how much depth appeared in those photos of Cometcatcher's. Depth of field I think it's called, you really can tell which stars are in the foreground & which stars are further back. I just don't see this in digital. Digital is flat depth wise.

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

It's an optical illusion. A bit like valves vrs transistors.

Really, I found film hard going with the real faint fuzzies. It's okay for the bright stuff, but going deep was difficult to impossible compared to digital. I could never bring out much detail in IC2944, The Running Chicken nebula on film for example.

[Pinwheel (Doug)]

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

It's an optical illusion.

Aw! Next you'll tell me Banana's are straight & coloured blue...

[raymo]

Doug's on the money, optical illusion or not, the sense of depth
perception in the Prawn Nebula image in particular, is quite plain.
Stunning, in fact.
raymo

[Octane (Humayun)]

This is because of the sensitivity of the film. Faint stars remain faint while bright stars appear to bloat.

It's a bit difficult nowadays due to sensors being so sensitive. The effect can be emulated by taking shorter exposures for the stars and blending them in. Which some people do.

H

Originally Posted by raymo

Doug's on the money, optical illusion or not, the sense of depth
perception in the Prawn Nebula image in particular, is quite plain.
Stunning, in fact.
raymo

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

It might also be an effect from the scanning process. Scanning a print has very bloated stars compared to scanning a negative.

This one of Hale-Bopp does look a bit 3D.

[MrB (Simon)]

I recall reading a Kodak paper many many years ago describing an effect where non exposed silver halide grains adjacent to exposed grains were sensitive to those exposed grains and therefore partially exposed.
I guess with long exposures and very bright stars this 'bleed' could extend quite far.

Another very well documented effect is halation where scatter, refraction and internal reflections between the emulsion layer and various substrates will create a halo around point sources. Anti-halation layers reduced but did not totally eliminate the internal reflections. Scatter and refraction remained an issue.

It may make the stars look nice, but it is indeed an optical illusion.

http://chestofbooks.com/arts/photogr...-Halation.html

[LightningNZ (Cam)]

You just don't get that "bleed" with digital sensors - especially CMOS. Also the linearity is near perfect across much of the brightness range while photographic film was far from linear. In a way, film gave a more "visual" likeness than modern sensors do. I guess it all depends on the effect you're after.
-Cam

[doppler (Rick)]

I have purchased an adaptor to use some of my old 35mm film camera lenses on with my 1100d canon. The first pic was taken with a 50mm lens @ iso 400 at f2.8 on fugi chrome slide film and 5min exposure. The second pic is a stack of 4 x 30 sec exposures @ iso 800 at f2.8 with the same lens but on the 1100d.
Just waiting for the magellenic clouds to clear the trees and skglow to try the next comparison
Rick

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

Both of those pics are reversed, but it's a good comparison. M7 for example stands out on film but is flat with digital.

There are times when I would like to replicate this effect with digital. I'm still working out the best way to do it. Anyone have any tips, other than a filter?

[gary]

Originally Posted by Pinwheel

Well I think my point is right, film was better, I don't know if any of you noticed how much depth appeared in those photos of Cometcatcher's. Depth of field I think it's called, you really can tell which stars are in the foreground & which stars are further back.

Hi Doug,

Just wanted to take the opportunity to make a technical qualification if I may.

"Depth of field" in optics refers to the distance between the nearest and
furthest object that appears sharp around the point of focus.

The objects in this instance could more or less all be regarded to be optically
at infinity.

So the term "depth of field" in the lexicon of optics or photography
refers to something totally different.

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

There are times when I would like to replicate this effect with digital.

Hi Kevin,

The 3D effect might simply be the chromostereopsis illusion.

This illusion results in objects with different colours appearing to have
different depths.

Where it can be quite remarkable directly visually is if you ever get the
opportunity to look through a large aperture binocular Dob at an object
such as the Jewel Box. The different coloured stars plus the fact that
both the left and right eye receive light results in a dramatic and
visually pleasing illusion that you are seeing the Jewel Box in 3D.

Unfortunately this is not the case and it is simply the brain trying
to interpret the scene that way.

So perhaps you might have more success with using fields that have
objects with the types of contrasting colours that tend to bring
about the chromostereopsis illusion?

It is believed the illusion might in part be due to chromatic aberration
within the eye. But like the perception of colour, which in itself could
be thought of as an illusion, no doubt a lot of it takes place at the back
of the brain in the visual cortex and elsewhere.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromostereopsis

It often comes as a surprise to some that how the human eye and brain
process colour is extremely different to the way film or digital cameras
work.