Film is not Dead Yet

In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

The "best film shot of the month" pool is small and getting smaller.

that should make it easier to win

"Gettamulla Tupya" wrote in message
news
Film *IS* dead for most applications. Astrophotography is one example
of where film is
still very useful. I can't think of any others at the moment.

Huh; it was my observation that essetially all astrophotography had
moved to CCDs, and that even amateurs were starting to use CCDS for
astro work, that convinced me that film really was going to die. Back
in the early 2000s.

Digital is too noisy when it comes to 3 hour exposures.

That's why they use liquid cooled sensors. And film has it's own problems of
course.

Trevor.

On 1/20/2012 8:34 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Gettamulla wrote in message
news
Film *IS* dead for most applications. Astrophotography is one example
of where film is
still very useful. I can't think of any others at the moment.

Huh; it was my observation that essetially all astrophotography had
moved to CCDs, and that even amateurs were starting to use CCDS for
astro work, that convinced me that film really was going to die. Back
in the early 2000s.

Digital is too noisy when it comes to 3 hour exposures.

That's why they use liquid cooled sensors. And film has it's own problems of
course.



Digital is nowhere near as noisy as film. To use film for
(non-planetary) astrophotography
either it has to be special film just for that use, or has to he
"hypersentizied" to reduce reciprocity failure. I've actually done
a lot of astrophotography using hypered film, including hypered
color negative film. Hypering is usually done by baking in hydrogen gas.
It works.

Doug McDonald

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Digital is nowhere near as noisy as film. To use film for (non-planetary)
astrophotography
either it has to be special film just for that use, or has to he
"hypersentizied" to reduce reciprocity failure. I've actually done
a lot of astrophotography using hypered film, including hypered
color negative film. Hypering is usually done by baking in hydrogen gas.
It works.

Right, and so do digital sensors, fortunately for the Hubble space station
:-)
(as well as all the terrestial observatories now using digital of course)

Trevor.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:09:00 -0800, nospam wrote:
: In article , Chris Malcolm
: wrote:
:
: The "best film shot of the month" pool is small and getting smaller.
:
: that should make it easier to win

Well, that's pretty much the observation that started this thread, isn't it?

But, ya know, the more I look at the picture, the more it grows on me. The
arrow on the pavement is what makes it work. It says, "Now that you've bought
your guns, out into the city is where you go to use them."

Bob

"charles" wrote in message
...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ts-day-17.html

Jan17_day17_orig

.38 special: Andrew Murr used a Hasselblad 503 with Kodak Portra 160
film to make this image of the Martin B. Retting gun shop on
Washington Boulevard in Culver City.

Neither is The Duke of Edinburgh, Nelson Mandela nor Jimmy Carter, but you
would not use any of them for anything serious nor take them on a foreign
trip...

Gettamulla Tupya writes:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:46:06 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Film *IS* dead for most applications. Astrophotography is one example of where film is
still very useful. I can't think of any others at the moment.

Huh; it was my observation that essetially all astrophotography had
moved to CCDs, and that even amateurs were starting to use CCDS for
astro work, that convinced me that film really was going to die. Back
in the early 2000s.

Digital is too noisy when it comes to 3 hour exposures.

Cryogenic cooling helps. Last I looked around, astronomers were using
digital for nearly everything these days.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Gettamulla Tupya wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:46:06 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Film *IS* dead for most applications. Astrophotography is one example of where film is
still very useful. I can't think of any others at the moment.

Huh; it was my observation that essetially all astrophotography had
moved to CCDs, and that even amateurs were starting to use CCDS for
astro work, that convinced me that film really was going to die. Back
in the early 2000s.

Digital is too noisy when it comes to 3 hour exposures.

Next time I visit my local astronomical observatory I must tell them
that. The fools have converted all their systems to supercooled
digital sensors. The sensor chips alone cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars each.

What film do you recommend they replace them with?

--
Chris Malcolm

On 24 Jan 2012 21:40:39 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
: Gettamulla Tupya wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:46:06 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
:
: Film *IS* dead for most applications. Astrophotography is one example of
: where film is still very useful. I can't think of any others at the moment.
:
: Huh; it was my observation that essetially all astrophotography had
: moved to CCDs, and that even amateurs were starting to use CCDS for
: astro work, that convinced me that film really was going to die.
: Back in the early 2000s.
:
: Digital is too noisy when it comes to 3 hour exposures.
:
: Next time I visit my local astronomical observatory I must tell
: them that. The fools have converted all their systems to supercooled
: digital sensors. The sensor chips alone cost hundreds of thousands
: of dollars each.
:
: What film do you recommend they replace them with?

Ansco Supreme or Superpan Press.

Bob

Trevor wrote:
"Frank S" wrote in message
...
This is a "why did he even bother?" shot.
This is a "films too expensive to waste on crap like that" shot IMO.
And there's always the "If you don't get it, there's no use in trying to
explain it to you" view.

Right, I don't get it, and it seems I'm not alone.
But don't bother trying to explain it to me, I'm sure the photog had a
reason to use his Hasselblad for something, if only to keep the shutter from
freezing up from non use :-)

Trevor.



Artistically speaking, the photo itself appears to be a dud. However,
you may have touched upon a reason why the photo was taken and possibly
why film was used. Maybe the issue is just a simple matter of the
photographer preferring to use his beloved Hasselblad which necessitates
the use of film. Yep, it just may be that the photographer is
emotionally attached to his favored Hasselblad.