Astrophotography question

[redvis]

Hi everyone,

This is a great forum and has been of a lot of use to me. I thank everyone in advance for their sharing of knowledge here.

I mainly am a film astrophotographer and my question here pertains to that. I'm planning on expanding from shooting deep space objects to also shooting the moon and sun (I used to do a lot of digital solar photography in the past so I'm not totally inexperienced in that realm).

My question is this: does anyone know of a b&w film (too bad Tech Pan is gone) that is both high resolution and has adequate sensitivity at 656.3 nanometers, the hydrogen-alpha wavelength for the sun's chromosphere ?

I have some Rollei Pan that I'd like to try and I am planning on ordering some Bluefire to try as well. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance,

Cameran

 

[clogz]

Interesting website: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

Hans

 

[Lee L]

Robert Reeves, Wide Field Astrophotography rated Kodak and Ilford films several years ago, but not the newer or less common films in the US. See: http://www.robertreeves.com/b&w.htm where he has a table that ranks by several criteria, including red sensitivity. Beyond that, looking at manufacturers specification and technical data is your best bet for a starting point, as I'm sure you know. I haven't really looked for that feature since Tech Pan disappeared.

Have you considered color films? Perhaps a color negative film?

Are you using a Coronado filter? a PST?

Lee

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . does anyone know of a b&w film (too bad Tech Pan is gone) that is both high resolution and has adequate sensitivity at 656.3 nanometers, the hydrogen-alpha wavelength for the sun's chromosphere ?

Freestyle sells Cube 400C which has good response up to 690 nm, but not the fine grain or contrast of Tech Pan. Dead Link Removed has extended IR, but not the fine grain of Tech Pan. Maco IR 750C also has good IR response.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Kodak's T-Max 100 has slightly more red sensitivity than most modern B&W films, but none of them are great at H-alpha. Without dealing with specifically IR films (loading and storage issues, etc.), you can get Fortepan 400, aka Classic Pan 400, which has enough red extension to give Wood effect with a 29A filter, or Ilford SFX 200 (if you can find some). An alternate would be some of the traffic surveillance films (Cube 400 is one such, also sold on a better base as Rollei R3), all of which have extended red sensitivity similar to Tech Pan, though they don't approach the resolution of Tech Pan.

However, if you're shooting 35 mm, you might consider setting up for larger formats. Classic 400 has plenty of resolution in 4x5, and it's very reasonably priced. As a bonus, you can process just what you shoot instead of being tied to factory loaded 36 exposure rolls in 35 mm (I've never seen Classic 400 in bulk in this country). Same film is also sold by Freestyle as Arista .EDU -- but not the .EDU Ultra, which is Fomapan and a perfectly ordinary panchro film that cuts off below 650 nm. I see Zeiss microscope cameras for 9x12 cm or 4x5 pretty regularly on eBay; these can be easily adapted to fit a focuser tube or eyepiece projection adapter, and are much lighter (and thus easier for your telescope to carry) than a 35 mm SLR body. They include a leaf shutter, also, which will introduce far less vibration than the mirror and shutter of an SLR.

 

[redvis]

Thanks for all the responses! I'll address each one here:

Clogz - I am aware of that site. Covington's book is like a bible for astrophotography, but his film data is out of date. Thanks for the link though.

Lee L - I am also aware of Robert Reeves' site. His last film book, Wide-Field astrophotography, is an excellent resource. I've tried HP5+ on some nebulae and while it does have some red response, when I shot through a IDAS LPS filter a 20 minute exposure really didn't bring out much nebulosity. Plus I didn't care for the grain. I am considering using some Elite Chrome 200 for my solar work since it has an excellent red response and I use it for my deep space work. We'll see. I used to have a PST but I recently sold it and am planning on purchasing a SolarMax40 scope and double-stacking it. This will bring me to <0.5 angstroms and will bring out a ton of surface details on the sun. I already had double stacked my PST and the surface detail was amazing.

Jim Jones - Thanks for the links to those films. I'll do some more research on the Cube 400C and see what I can find. I'd love to have something fine grained, but oh well

Donald Qualls - I have a few rolls of T-Max 100 sitting around (I've gotten interested in terrestrial photography since late last year. Sometimes the astrophotography bug has bitten me and the weather's too bad for shooting!) I will also look at those films you mentioned, I had figured that some of the surveillance films may be what I'm looking for. I am thinking I may give BlueFire a shot.

I'm thinking about moving up to medium format eventually, but that would involve getting a whole new scope and mount. In fact, there is a specialized astrophotography camera that is 4x5 and sells new for only about $165. I've been considering it. I'll also look at those Zeiss microscope cameras. The camera I currently use does have mirror-lockup so that helps with reducing the vibrations.

Thanks for everyone's responses, and sorry for the length of mine!

Cameran

 

[Sparky]

In fact, there is a specialized astrophotography camera that is 4x5 and sells new for only about $165. I've been considering it.
Cameran

What you talkin' 'bout??! Hook me up!! - seriously though... I would be quite interested in this if you can tell me where to find it. I've been meaning to get into astro work and have been researching it for awhile. I've decided to forego the 'scope entirely and just put a camera on a good mount and concentrate on more wide-field work - which I think is more interesting anyway - nebulae are quite interesting to me. I figured I'd just get a losmandy GM-8 mount (unless I can find a more accurate mount for not much more money) and use my 100mm planar (very sharp!) on a hasselblad.

BTW - what about the hypered tech pan from lumicon? it's very reasonably priced. It would APPEAR they're still selling it.

The thing I'd be nervous about with 4x5 is getting okay focus. It would be kind of hell. And negative movement and condensation I'd think, would be huge concerns...

Jonathan

 

[Sparky]

They include a leaf shutter, also, which will introduce far less vibration than the mirror and shutter of an SLR.

Donald - I'd imagine the influence from any shutter would die out within the first second or two of the exposure. Anyway - I'm not sure it's such a problem with the 20 minute plus exposures necessary for most astro work...

 

[redvis]

Hi Sparky!

No joke about the camera, here's a link:

Dead Link Removed

However, it appears it is no longer sold. Might be able to find one used or contact them for a one-time job. That's too bad since I was thinking of getting one.

Ok, great to hear that you're interested in starting astrophotography! Be ready for a money and time vortex! It is such a rewarding hobby for sure.

Are you planning on using film? If you're going to mount just a camera and lens, you won't get any decent close-up shots of nebulae. I think you'd need at least something like a 400mm lens to do that and often at that scale you'll need to expose for a while which means you'll need a guidescope as well to counteract the earth's rotation which gives the stars their apparent movement across the sky. And honestly a lot of camera lenses are pretty....bad....for astrophotography since they will often have distortions at their edges that you won't notice in a terrestrial shot but will notice when you have a large field of pin-point stars.

Even if you're using a 100mm lens you'd need to have a polar alignment with the north celestial pole. The most accurate way is to do a drift alignment which means you'll need a scope. At 100mm you might be able to get 5-10 minutes at best before your stars would streak across the film. With film astrophotography the camera doesn't matter as much (you do NOT want one with a light meter!). As long as it is totally manual you can take great shots.

As for the Losmandy GM-8...I used to think I needed an expensive mount to do astrophotography, until I looked at work done by Peter Kennett and Chris Provost. Both of them use Meade LXD75 mounts which can be had for as little as $500 used with GO-TO. Peter uses a large scope on the mount, but Chris has recently started using a relatively small scope. Here's a link to shots taken by Peter: http://www.petesastrophotography.com/index.html?mainframe=/galleryindex.html
and here's a link to Chris' first shot with a small scope on the LXD 75: Dead Link Removed

Both Peter and Chris use old Olympus OM-1s. This is one hobby where the more expensive cameras take a back seat ;-) If you are serious about buying a dedicated film astrocamera, look here: http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/mitsub/index.htm

Peter manually guides his shots and Chris uses an autoguider. I believe that with a Meade LXD75 and a small scope using a DSI Pro autoguider you can do very long exposures. No need for a Gm-8, in my opinion. I went with Borg scopes for mine - they are the lightest telescopes out there and of are very high quality (often compared to TeleVue and Takahashi). I have gone as long as 45 minutes with my scope/mount combo. You can find more info on Borg scopes at http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/index.htm and http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/borg/index.htm

You'll also need to consider filters for light pollution, etc. I can go into that if you'd like, but I think I've typed waaay too much for only have like 2 posts at the board!

I've attached a picture of my setup getting ready to shoot the Leo Triplet of galaxies (35 million light years away). The best films for astrophotography are Elite Chrome 200 and Fuji Provia 400F. Provia is better for galaxies and Elite Chrome is better for nebulae.

If you do have any other questions please feel free to ask. There are a couple of sites on the net where film astrophotography is alive and well - groups like this full of great people willing to share. I can send them to you or post them here if you'd like.

By the way, Lumicon told me a few months ago that they no longer sell hypered Tech Pan and also for shooting the sun/moon as I had originally mentioned shutter vibrations make a huge difference. Luckily my camera (Pentax K1000) has mirror-lockup.

Cameran

 

[Sparky]

Thanks for the info -
I'd have to absorb some of this though - I think we might be talking about different things. I was looking at the possibility of using an autoguider with my setup - but I still DO have more to learn.

I thought I'd show you this link... this guy is doing almost exactly what I'd like to do/capture and with identical equipment. Actually a LOT of nebulae are clearly visible with even wider lenses in these shots - but perhaps it's a magic camera (!)

Dead Link Removed

The 100mm planar is considered one of the most distortion-free lenses ever designed and built. That's the reason I bought the thing. Even stars at the far edge of frame are rendered as spherical (almost) pinpoints...! I'm very interested in trying to get near-perfect alignment and tracking on these. But we'll see.

The links you included - It was quite difficult to determine what the resolution of the shots actually WAS... since I couldn't seem to coax the original from the thumbnails on the pages... anyway - will check it out and check back in with you when I've done a bit of absorbing...! Thanks much for that.

 

[Carol]

Hello Cameron

I'd be very interested in the film+astro sites if you could post a link. I've been interested on astrophotography for some time, but am only just starting to get some gear together to try it for myself. I'm a member of an astro forum down here, but most of the members are using ccd cameras and I'd kind of like to try film.

Boy I can't wait to follow all the links posted above. Thanks so much.

 

[Lee L]

Hello Cameron

I'd be very interested in the film+astro sites if you could post a link. I've been interested on astrophotography for some time, but am only just starting to get some gear together to try it for myself. I'm a member of an astro forum down here, but most of the members are using ccd cameras and I'd kind of like to try film.

Boy I can't wait to follow all the links posted above. Thanks so much.

Three excellent books and related web sites:

Wallis & Provin A Manual of Advanced Celestial Photography ISBN 0521255538
http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/wallis_provin.html


Covington Astrophotography for the Amateur 2nd ed. ISBN 0521627400
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

Reeves Widefield Astrophotography ISBN 0943396646
http://www.robertreeves.com/

and another useful site:

Jerry Lodriguss' web page
http://www.astropix.com/

Wallis and Provin's book is out of print, but should be available used, and is worth hunting down because of its completeness. They have now gone to CCD work for much of their stuff. Reeves also has a new book out on digital imaging, but the book above is all film. Lodriguss' web page has some how-to articles, and the other web pages have good information as well.

Lee

 

[redvis]

Thanks for the info -
I'd have to absorb some of this though - I think we might be talking about different things. I was looking at the possibility of using an autoguider with my setup - but I still DO have more to learn.

I thought I'd show you this link... this guy is doing almost exactly what I'd like to do/capture and with identical equipment. Actually a LOT of nebulae are clearly visible with even wider lenses in these shots - but perhaps it's a magic camera (!)

Dead Link Removed

The 100mm planar is considered one of the most distortion-free lenses ever designed and built. That's the reason I bought the thing. Even stars at the far edge of frame are rendered as spherical (almost) pinpoints...! I'm very interested in trying to get near-perfect alignment and tracking on these. But we'll see.

The links you included - It was quite difficult to determine what the resolution of the shots actually WAS... since I couldn't seem to coax the original from the thumbnails on the pages... anyway - will check it out and check back in with you when I've done a bit of absorbing...! Thanks much for that.

Hi Sparky,

If you use an autoguider with your setup you'll need a guidescope for the autoguider. Some autoguiders come with a small guidescope (The SBIG STV with eFinder for example) but their guidescopes are too small to mount a camera on. You'd need a guidescope for the autoguider and then you'd mount your camera piggyback.

That's a great link, turns out I had it bookmarked already. I looked through a lot of the shots and the photography always had a guidescope (the Meade LX200). They are great wide-field shots, but given the focal length of his lenses there isn't a lot of detail in the nebulae. It's all a matter of preference, of course. I typically shoot at about 425mm with my Borg 77ED which gives me a semi-widefield. I'm with you - I like widefield but there is definitely something to be said for closeups!

I'm not sure about the resolution of Pete's images but Chris scans his 35mm E200 slides in at about 2400 or 2700 dpi if I am not mistaken. I believe that the shot I linked to was not altered in any way other than setting the blackpoint with the scanner software.

I have no experience with lenses other than some old Pentax and Vivitar and newer Nikon lenses so I had no idea how a Hasselblad lens would work. You can always stop down 1 or 2 stops from wide open to remove any distortions from lenses. That's what I have to do with my Pentax lenses when I do widefield, but if you're lens is distortion free then you my friend are very lucky!

Of course, if you ever got a nice scope you could do a medium format mosaic. If you want to see a super example of one, check this out:

Orion Mosaic: http://aisig.sdaa.org/astroblogDetail.asp?imgID=541&UserID=67
How it was done: http://aisig.sdaa.org/astroblog/astroblogDetail.asp?imgID=542&UserId=67

I am really looking forward to seeing some of your astrophotos! Let me know if you have any questions and check out the books Astrophotography for the Amateur and Widefield Astrophotography. They can be had used for a good price and are books I am constantly referring to!

Looking forward to seeing your results!

Cameran

 

[redvis]

Hi Carol,

Lee has listed some absolutely excellent books. I don't have any experience with the Wallis & Provin book, but I actually just checked it out from the library last week and have been thumbing through it. I would definitely get it. Another book recommendation is:

High Resolution Astrophotography by Jean Dragesco

It's a book mainly for solar and lunar astrophotography but it's been very helpful in getting me ready to do more serious lunar work. I picked it up used online for very cheap.

It really is hard to find a decent film astro-group on the web. Almost everyone shoots with a digital camera, digital SLR, or CCD. However, there are still a few places where you can get some great advice from awesome people (kind of like APUG!):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Filmastrophotographers/

The Yahoo film astrophotographers group is, in my opinion, an unbelievable resource. They have been very helpful and full of wonderful advice. We are always looking for more members so we'd love to have you join. We're also running a project right now with the ultimate aim of submitting it to Sky & Telescope - 3 Minutes with the Hunter. Everyone takes a shot of 3 minutes duration with any scope, camera, film, etc. of Orion. It's been a blast!

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php/Cat/0/Board/Film

The CloudyNights film astrophotography board is another great resource. One could be up and shooting with Covington's and Reeves' book and these two places.

Lastly is the APML (Astrophotography Mailing List) archives: http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/

There is almost 10 years worth of astrophotography advice there. The list is now mainly about CCD and digital, but there is occasionally a film discussion. The archives, however, are an amazing resource where you can find answers to questions by doing a search.

I would really encourage you to at least join the Yahoo group. It's a very active place with a lot of members who are happy to help you out. One benefit of digital becoming so popular is that it has forced film users into these more specialized sites making it easier than ever to chat with people who have the same interest!

Carol, I'm excited to see your results as well. Let me know how everything goes!

Cameran

 

[Sparky]

Hi Sparky,

If you use an autoguider with your setup you'll need a guidescope for the autoguider. Some autoguiders come with a small guidescope (The SBIG STV with eFinder for example) but their guidescopes are too small to mount a camera on. You'd need a guidescope for the autoguider and then you'd mount your camera piggyback.

Yes - Hi Cameran - the autoguider setups I looked at did indeed have a guidescope. I'm really unsure how it might be able to function without it... I am intrigued by Chris' (from the website) suggestions on manual guiding. Though I'd really like to make tack-sharp 24x24 prints. I'm completely uninterested in colour work though. Just black & white. Pity about the tech pan. It's cruel of them to have it advertised on their site...!

I suppose I'd have to choose a long enough guidescope F.L. to get me the stability I'm looking for. I really DON'T want to mount a camera on top of a scope. Does not sound like a stable proposition to me. I'd rather mount the camera directly to the mount via a stiff bar which would allow me to have an outrigger for mounting the guidescope. Perhaps reinforced.

That's a great link, turns out I had it bookmarked already. I looked through a lot of the shots and the photography always had a guidescope (the Meade LX200). They are great wide-field shots, but given the focal length of his lenses there isn't a lot of detail in the nebulae. It's all a matter of preference, of course. I typically shoot at about 425mm with my Borg 77ED which gives me a semi-widefield. I'm with you - I like widefield but there is definitely something to be said for closeups!

I'm interested in capturing star-fields if that makes any sense. I like the visual density of them - and what it does to the imagination I suppose. It's simply that I'm kind of fascinated what you'd be able to see with the naked eye - if only it's aperture were big enough - !!

I'm not sure about the resolution of Pete's images but Chris scans his 35mm E200 slides in at about 2400 or 2700 dpi if I am not mistaken. I believe that the shot I linked to was not altered in any way other than setting the blackpoint with the scanner software.

Yes - I was kind of dumb and seemed to click on the only two that didn't link to the full res version...! ooops! silly me.

I have no experience with lenses other than some old Pentax and Vivitar and newer Nikon lenses so I had no idea how a Hasselblad lens would work. You can always stop down 1 or 2 stops from wide open to remove any distortions from lenses. That's what I have to do with my Pentax lenses when I do widefield, but if you're lens is distortion free then you my friend are very lucky!

The zeiss website refers to it as a lens specifically designed to be 'distortion free' (which of course is simply the degree of error in theoretical vs. real image height from the central axis of the lens). Though I doubt it is really distortion 'free'... as that's a bit impossible. But it DOES go on about it being designed for NASA for 'from space' imaging purposes. More for terrestrial mapping, actually. But as such it is designed to be used at f/4 and does have it's highest performance at this aperture.

I am really looking forward to seeing some of your astrophotos! Let me know if you have any questions and check out the books Astrophotography for the Amateur and Widefield Astrophotography. They can be had used for a good price and are books I am constantly referring to!

Looking forward to seeing your results!

Cameran

Thanks for the wishes, Cameran - I'm really not sure if I'm going to get something together in the next year or so even... but something I'm trying to keep on top of if and when I AM ready...! Thanks for the comments/interest. Love to see some of the stuff you've done, though...! thanks.

 

[Carol]

Thank you Lee and Cameron for the book suggestions and site links. I look forward to following them all up. I find it a very interesting branch of photography and need lots of info before I buy any more gear. Your help is much appreciated.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Donald - I'd imagine the influence from any shutter would die out within the first second or two of the exposure. Anyway - I'm not sure it's such a problem with the 20 minute plus exposures necessary for most astro work...

I wish that were true, Sparky.

My Spotmatic will make my Meade (admittedly an undersize scope and mount for a 40 year old SLR) bounce around for most of a minute. And if there are bright stars in field, they'll record at the end points of a vibration and it'll look like you have a whole field full of binaries (sometimes called "nose binaries" from when you bump the scope with your nose while guiding).

The classic method of dealing with camera-induced vibration is to cover the tube opening with a black hat, open the shutter, let the vibrations damp, then take away the hat, returning it before touching anything at closing time. Making sure, of course, not to touch the scope tube with the hat at the beginning of the exposure...

 

[Carol]

Donald my very old Tasco wobbles for that long each time I adjust the focus. Hence my search for a new telescope to attach a camera to. Apparently there are as many opinions about which is the best set-up as there are about film/dev combinations.

 

[Sparky]

I wish that were true, Sparky.

My Spotmatic will make my Meade (admittedly an undersize scope and mount for a 40 year old SLR) bounce around for most of a minute. And if there are bright stars in field, they'll record at the end points of a vibration and it'll look like you have a whole field full of binaries (sometimes called "nose binaries" from when you bump the scope with your nose while guiding).

The classic method of dealing with camera-induced vibration is to cover the tube opening with a black hat, open the shutter, let the vibrations damp, then take away the hat, returning it before touching anything at closing time. Making sure, of course, not to touch the scope tube with the hat at the beginning of the exposure...

That makes complete sense to me, Donald. I suppose I was living in a different world though - and functioning under the assumption we were talking about wide-field photography with just a camera sitting directly on a heavy mount. Apologies for my self-absorption.

 

[Donald Qualls]

That makes complete sense to me, Donald. I suppose I was living in a different world though - and functioning under the assumption we were talking about wide-field photography with just a camera sitting directly on a heavy mount. Apologies for my self-absorption.

Not at all -- just need to make sure we're clear on the assumptions. For the camera only, you're probably right; I haven't printed them yet, but I've got some decent looking negatives of the Moon done with my Spottie, a Vivitar 400 mm f/6.3, and Vivitar 3x teleconverter (equivalent 1200 mm f/19). With the lens wide open, I was able to shoot at 1/250, and even on my flimsy tripod the exposure was over before the camera could bounce enough to cause a problem.

If you have the budget for a Losmandy mount the next size bigger than your telescope really needs, as well as the appropriate lens, a piggyback mount works very well. If you don't, the best you'll get for sky-tracking is a barndoor mount and whatever long lens you can mount on it. Now that I've got a long enough lens to bother, I need to get to work on building a barndoor...