Gonna try some night star shots with Tmax 400 sheet film for the current MSA challenge. Any suggestions.
Night star shots with Tmax 400
-
A
- Thread starter peter k.
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale NIKON D800 (read)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy WTB Konica Hexar RF
- Started by axestrata
-
For Sale Multiple Signed Photographic Books
- Started by tallenpatterson
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
Forum statistics
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
To get star trails? I always set up before sundown. These are on 4x5 and 8x10 film.
This one was about 7 hour exposure on 8x10 HP5. 120 Nikkor SW f/16 Xtol stock No metre reading. I guess where the North Star would be...
This one is about 4 hour exposure on 4x5 HP5. Xtol stock. f/16 Lots of light pollution in Japan, so had to burn the sky in quite a bit. I also did a lot of light painting on the buildings, and under the elevator tower.
This one was about 7 hour exposure on 8x10 HP5. 120 Nikkor SW f/16 Xtol stock No metre reading. I guess where the North Star would be...
This one is about 4 hour exposure on 4x5 HP5. Xtol stock. f/16 Lots of light pollution in Japan, so had to burn the sky in quite a bit. I also did a lot of light painting on the buildings, and under the elevator tower.
OP
OP
Lovely work on the second shots tower and buildings, very nicely done.
Was thinking more in the line of just the wildness of the universe, but without star trails, So wondered from those with experience, what would approximately be the longest exposure time for such a shot. Can one perhaps shoot at a higher asa of 3200, using Tmax 400, and then develop it in an ad normal way?
Background: We have Xtol, D-76 and Hc110 on hand, and of course a tripod, and most likely will shoot MF or 4x5 sheet film. .
Was thinking more in the line of just the wildness of the universe, but without star trails, So wondered from those with experience, what would approximately be the longest exposure time for such a shot. Can one perhaps shoot at a higher asa of 3200, using Tmax 400, and then develop it in an ad normal way?
Background: We have Xtol, D-76 and Hc110 on hand, and of course a tripod, and most likely will shoot MF or 4x5 sheet film. .
With a normal focal length and no larger than 8x10, you should be able to expose up to a minute without noticeable trailing. You won't see the stars, though.
I have a pinhole 4x5 that I'd like to set up pointing straight up for several hours, though in my area I've been waiting for clear weather. We've been having some really crappy night weather lately.
Pretty sure you won't see anything recorded by stars at pinhole apertures. You might capture the Moon on its journey, especially near full and if the pinhole is on the large side.
The Moon appears to move by its own diameter (half a degree, near enough) in only two minutes, so if your hole is too small to records Sunny f/11 conditions (the brightness of the full Moon's face) in a minute or so, you'll get a ghost of the Moon, instead of a solid trail.
The Moon appears to move by its own diameter (half a degree, near enough) in only two minutes, so if your hole is too small to records Sunny f/11 conditions (the brightness of the full Moon's face) in a minute or so, you'll get a ghost of the Moon, instead of a solid trail.
I don’t remember the size of the pinhole off the top of my head, but during the day, with 400 speed film, most exposures are down in the less than 5 second range, depending on film reciprocity failure.
Okay, so you should be able to get a reasonably correct exposure of the Moon in that or a stop longer than that (since it's sunlit rock, about the same color as asphalt pavement) -- but the stars will fuzz out enough due to the pinhole that they likely won't be visible on the film. You might possibly get visible trails if you expose several minutes to several hours, but hard to be sure.
yeah. Hence the experiment. Should be interesting. I just need a clear night sky.
And a ticket out of light pollution central...
I’m in Sonoma County in CA. Santa Rosa is the largest city in the county, but otherwise, it’s mostly vineyards and farms. There’s not a lot of light pollution.
Ah. I failed California Geography for $20. I thought Petaluma was in the LA basin. Carry on...
LOL... that'd be terrible. Sonoma/Marin/Napa counties are called "wine country" by the locals. It's a whole lotta pretty wide open land with not a lot of lights. Lots of Vineyards/Wineries. We're about an hour north of the Golden Gate Bridge, depending on traffic. I've never made the drive from the bridge to Petaluma in less than 45 minutes, and it's taken a longer than that most of the time.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 280
- Format
- 35mm
If recall correctly from my astronomy days: since stars are point sources, exposure depends on the width of the lens aperture, rather than the f number. Hence an exposure with a 200mm lens at f/16 will show as many stars as an exposure with a 50mm lens at f/4.
It's different for extended objects, like the milky way. Exposure in those cases is a function of f stop.
It's different for extended objects, like the milky way. Exposure in those cases is a function of f stop.
That's generally correct, i think. Complicating things is that the more magnification you use (effectively longer focal length) the larger the star images will be, because despite them being point sources, atmosphere and optical imperfections and diffraction spread them out in to, at best, an Airy disk, and in the real world, a fuzzy blob. The bigger the blob, the less density the same amount of light (implied by aperture diameter) will produce over that blob. Astronomically, compared a first magnitude object like M31 with a first magnitude object like Mars near opposition. Which one is easier to see (or photograph)?
So, since longer focal length (=> higher magnification) makes star images dimmer while physically larger aperture makes them brighter, we're back to f ratio, give or take a bit.
Either way, a pinhole isn't going to be optimum for recording star trails, but I haven't tried it so I can't say categorically that it won't work.
Cloudy here, otherwise I'd load up my nice new Ondu or my nearly as nice and not quite as new 6x6 pinhole and go out and give it a try. I'd generally tend to expect good results between f/8 and f/16 for star trails, though...
all I can say:
We have a relatively clear night here. I loaded a sheet of TMax 400 in my pinhole and put it out in my back yard pointing straight up at 8PM. I’ll leave it there until midnight then process it sometime tomorrow to see if anything shows up on the sheet.
Well, that sheet of 4x5 didn’t develop anything. 
star trails with a pinhole doesn’t work
star trails with a pinhole doesn’t work
Not very surprising. Normally I see recommendations for f/8 to f/11, occasionally wider than that. f/150 and slower seems unlikely to record anything before the star image has moved too much.
that seems to be the case. I’d be partially inclined to maybe try Delta3200 in a roll film cassette, and dev the daylights out of it, but it’s just not worth a roll of film..
I hate to offer this option on the analog-only forums, but you could make a pinhole body cap for a DSLR and use that to check what ISO you need to record star trails at some given aperture number. I think it'll be higher than you can get any film.
I have an intrepid 8x10 camera with a 300mm lens, and a 4x5 reducing back and 150mm lens, so shooting sheet with a lens isn’t that big a deal, I just thought it’d be fun to try out a pinhole.
Makes sense to me. I've seen those solstice cameras -- undersize pinholes (to produce very long exposures) that are left out for six months (or, occasionally, much longer) and record the arc of the sun's travel each day. That's kind of a star trail with a pinhole...
My sentiments exactly
Was the light painting just guess work in terms of time how much was needed, Andrew? It has worked out exactly right as far as I can see
pentaxuser
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
It was all guess work and a little experience from past failures. I only had an off-camera flash for my EOS-6, set to strobe. I went through quite a few batteries that night! This was attempt number three. The other times, condensation built up on the lens (too humid in summer months, this one here was shot in late October), or didn't light paint enough. One thing about Japan, there is a lot of light pollution. All those pachinko parlours! I had to burn in the sky with a high contrast filter, to make the sky dark and bring out the star trails. There is an airport nearby as well, and I was under its main flight path. If you look closely at the print, you can see the point where the aircraft landing lights came on.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |