Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: 35mm film?

  1. #1
    Glenn Mulno's Avatar
    Glenn Mulno Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    Hi All,

    Just curious what people use for 35mm film (for those that still use a
    manual camera and not CCD)? Do you use different films for different
    purposes (i.e. maybe one film for the moon and one for deep sky)?



  2. #2
    Stephen Paul's Avatar
    Stephen Paul Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    "Glenn Mulno" <> wrote in message

    I don't have an answer, but I do have a follow on question: Is it possible
    to do wide field film photography in the range of magnitude 4.5 to 5.5

    Stephen Paul

  3. #3
    Del Johnson's Avatar
    Del Johnson Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    One trick to suppress sky glow is to use a slower f/stop. Ideally, you wan
    to the stars to show up but have the skyglow be to dim to register. This
    works because film response to light is not linear.

    Another trick is to digitize the film frame with a scanner. At that point
    one may employ all the digital techniques commonly used to enhanced CCD
    images. For example, one might subtract the background sky glow, increase
    contrast or remove an airplane trail.

    Del Johnson

    "Stephen Paul" <> wrote in message

  4. #4
    William R. Mattil's Avatar
    William R. Mattil Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    In article <beu7n8$oiv$>,
    Stephen Paul <> wrote:


    Absolutely. There are currently no decent print films for capturing
    the ~650nm emissions. Kodak and Fuji have *improved* their print films
    and in the process ruined them for this purpose. The last truely great
    Astro print film was *old* Kodak Supra 400. This has, sadly, been changed
    and the new version isn't very good. But I have some 300 rolls of the good
    stuff so I save it for use on objects suitable for its properties. I
    wouldn't use it for galaxies with the possible exception of M51 and M33.
    The reason for this is that nebulosity is visible on real deep images on
    these two. The situation for slide films is much better, Fuji Provia and
    Kodak E200 are exceptional with good red response and useable for any object
    desired. Then there is the holy grail of all Astro Film .... Kodak Tech Pan
    which is B&W but is extremely fine grained, has terrific color response and
    only drawback is horrible reciprocity which can be resolved by hypering.
    Also of value for Lunar photography is Kodak T-Max. T-Max suffers from
    reciprocity failure but with Lunar/Planetary photography this is seldom
    a problem.

    To Summarize:

    1) Nebulae, NGC7000, Horsehead, M42 etc Old Kodak Supra or Kodak E200

    2) Galaxies and Open/Globular Clusters, Hypered Tech Pan or E200

    3) Lunar/Planetary, Fuji Superia 100, Tech Pan, T-Max, Tri-X

    4) Reflection Nebulae Witch Head M45, Kodak Supra 400, Provia. E200 is
    a bit weak on blues but is useable.

    5) Widefield (ie: Piggyback) Kodak E200, Provia and Someone has suggested
    that they have had *reasonable* results with Kodak Max Versatility 800 but
    I have no empirical data to support it as I have yet to try it.

    hummmmm glutton for punishment aren't we ? <laughs>. Seriously ... it *is*
    possible but I would run some tests to determine how long you can actually
    have a shutter open before sky-fog ruins the picture. Longer focal length
    lenses will obviously increase this time. With an 8inch Schmidt Camera,
    203mm f/1.5, using hypered Tech Pan and a wratten 92 (dark red) filter I
    can sometimes go as long as 18 minutes from my house. I try and do all
    of my testing from my backyard which means I try many different set-ups
    and most *work* to some extent. Those that do, I use when I visit my dark
    sky locations.

    Ha Filters can be very useable in this type of photography as well.

    if you are seriously interested in Wide Field work I would recommend
    Robert Reeves Book available from Willman Bell. He pretty much covers
    it all. Great Book.



    William R. Mattil | If Con is the opposite of Pro .... Then
    Sr. System Aministrator | is Congress the opposite of Progress ? -
    (972) 399-4106 | Gallagher

  5. #5
    Laura Halliday's Avatar
    Laura Halliday Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    "Glenn Mulno" <> wrote in message news:<beu542$pln$>...

    My most recent pictures included some pictures of the
    Moon on Kodak Portra 160 NC, and some piggyback pictures
    on Fuji Press 400. Both of these were "what they had
    at the camera store" purchases. I was looking for fine
    grain and decent exposure latitude for the former, and
    good speed with vivid colours for the latter.

    Curiously, emission nebulae come out pink on Fuji
    Press 800 (e.g. Orion, Eta Carinae), but come out
    greyish-green on Fuji Press 400 (e.g. North American
    Nebula). I obviously must plan another trip to
    Australia to confirm the colour of the Eta Carinae
    nebula. :-)

    BTW: of course people still use film cameras. CCDs have
    their uses (and are very good at them), but wide-field
    photography is still very much the province of film, and
    is likely to remain that way for a while. Some of the
    hype is just that: hype.

    Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
    Grid: CN89lg pied a terre..."
    ICBM: 49 16.57 N 123 0.24 W - Hospital/Shafte

  6. #6
    Rod Mollise's Avatar
    Rod Mollise Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    >Just curious what people use for 35mm film (for those that still use a


    Ektachrome on those rare occasions (very rare) when I shoot film, anymore.
    However, if we DO get a great comet next year, I imagine I'll be shooting a

    Rod Mollise
    Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
    Like SCTs and MCTs?
    Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
    Goto <>

  7. #7
    Ron Andrews's Avatar
    Ron Andrews Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    "William R. Mattil" <> wrote in part:

    Kodak Max 800 film has red sensitivity very similar to "*old* Kodak
    Supra 400" (except faster). I agree with you on most other films. They are
    better if you are shooting morning glories, but not as good for nebulas.Here
    is a link to a sample shot on Kodak 800 (actually a composite of 7 frames):

  8. #8
    William R. Mattil's Avatar
    William R. Mattil Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    In article <IrKQa.116530$>,
    Ron Andrews <> wrote:


    You must have missed this part of my response eh ?

    But thanks for the link. The jury isn't quite back yet on the Max 800, at
    least on APML. There have been conflicting reports as to its useability.
    But one thing is certain. It has more grain than Supra 400. therefore
    less desireable IMHO But still nice to know that there is at least one
    current print film that works.




    William R. Mattil | Statisticians define a lottery as a tax
    Sr. System Aministrator | on not understanding mathematics
    (972) 399-4106 |

  9. #9
    William R. Mattil's Avatar
    William R. Mattil Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    In article <>,
    Matt <> wrote:

    That *is* exactly what I mean. Kodak in their infinite brilliance decided
    approx a year ago that they would "improve" Supra 400. They destroyed its
    useability as an Astro Film and create havoc with the Skyshooters that I
    know. Everyone was scrambling finding sellers with the *old* stock and
    comparing experation dates trying to determine which was new and which
    was old. Personally, I opted for approx 350 rolls of the good stuff and
    its safely stored in my 'fridge <laughs> More film than food in there if I
    count the remaining stock of PPF, hypered Tech Pan and bricks of E200.

    No. And Portra blows chunks as an Astro-Film.

    This is from memory so caveat emptor, any Supra with an experation date
    of mid 2004 or later is likely to be the new stuff and essentially
    worthless unless you want pictures of your wife and kids. I would urge
    you to join the APML, or at least read through the archives on this. Its
    an entertaining read :^) As new sources for the old film were found the
    info was posted and the feeding frenzy began. Quite funny, but sad too.

    Yep .... thats the new *improved* (read as trashed) Supra. The old stuff
    is a wonderful Astro-Film. Much better than PPF and it continues to suck
    up photons long after the one hour mark. In fact some people claim that
    the old Supra isn't really good until your exposures exceed 20 minutes.
    they indicate that is where it really takes off.

    So the short story is that Astro Films are in short supply these days.
    Hopefully the situation will improve ...... Film is just more fun than
    CCD. Somehow to me, holding the negative in my hand somehow makes it more
    real. Opinions will vary on this naturally.



    William R. Mattil | Statisticians define a lottery as a tax
    Sr. System Aministrator | on not understanding mathematics
    (972) 399-4106 |

  10. #10
    Herm's Avatar
    Herm Guest

    Default 35mm film?

    Yes, use a Hutech Idas filter.. very effective in light pollution, nice
    color rendition and almost no increase in exposure time. BTW, dont use it
    for visual, it hardly has an effect used visually.

    Much better color rendition than the Lumicon filter..The IDAS can also be
    used in dark skies, there it renders images that do not require computer
    image processing... excellent results if you just want to print the stuff
    at the local 1hr photo store.

    On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:29:27 -0400, "Stephen Paul" <>



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. CCD vs 35mm
    By Brian Hill in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-18-2005, 04:20 AM
  2. Using 35mm film camera with 8in reflector for moon photos
    By BTF in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-10-2004, 03:04 AM
  3. 35mm film/slide scanners
    By Chuck in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-24-2004, 02:37 PM
  4. What 35mm film?
    By James in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-07-2004, 04:46 PM
  5. Canon 35mm Adaptor
    By Paul F. Aubin in forum Meade Telescope Forums
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2003, 12:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 PM.