Photographing Jupiter (and the moon)

Photos, sketches and other images by SPA members

Moderators: Guy Fennimore, joe, Brian

Post Reply
Daveye
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Photographing Jupiter (and the moon)

Post by Daveye »

Contrary to the title there are no photos here! Blame the developers who didn't print them after I said to them to "print all the photos even the dark ones".

I'm wondering if I would have seen much anyway, I've attached a minolta SLR film camera to my 200mm skywater. It was still twilight, the only time I can see it now. Through the viewfinder I could see some moons and the disc shape so I thought it would be relitivley clear on a photo.

I think I used some exposures at about 1/125 1/250 1/500, didn't want to go too long incase it blurred and it seemed bright enough.

Is it worth going back to complain and hopefuly get them redevoloped? Or would I be wasting my time.



http://daveye.deviantart.com/art/The-Moon-66060528

Heres one un-related photo that did work.
Dan
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Haverfordwest, UK
Contact:

Post by Dan »

Can you see anything on the negatives? If so, then it may be worthwhile going back to the developers. (Or maybe investing in a good film scanner?)


I wouldn't expect to get anything with exposure times that short, but I can't really say I ever tried.
Davej
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Sheffield (53° 21' N 1° 12' W)
Contact:

Re: Photographing Jupiter (and the moon)

Post by Davej »

Daveye wrote:Contrary to the title there are no photos here! Blame the developers who didn't print them after I said to them to "print all the photos even the dark ones".

I'm wondering if I would have seen much anyway, I've attached a minolta SLR film camera to my 200mm skywater. It was still twilight, the only time I can see it now. Through the viewfinder I could see some moons and the disc shape so I thought it would be relitivley clear on a photo.

I think I used some exposures at about 1/125 1/250 1/500, didn't want to go too long incase it blurred and it seemed bright enough.

Is it worth going back to complain and hopefuly get them redevoloped? Or would I be wasting my time.



http://daveye.deviantart.com/art/The-Moon-66060528

Heres one un-related photo that did work.
Hi,
I can remember, when taking my films to be developed, I had to write a short note mentioning what was on the film (ie. astro pics and to be checked "manually" as opposed to the auto proccessing method.) Sometimes I was lucky but more often than not I didn"t get back the pics I had painstakenly taken :( .
I therefore went to using slide film and developing them myself (what you take is what you get, no auto colour, exposure correction etc. ) A bit of a painstaking job tho, but they do look good when projected onto a four foot square screen. (You can have slide film developed obviously but is quite expensive, and having normal black and white prints are more expensive than colour prints :?. Anyone else noticed this ?).
Going to have to go digital I think.
Dave
Meade LX 200 (7"). Odyssey 8" Dob.
11X80 10x50 15x70 bins
Celestron Neximage ccd cam
Daveye
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Post by Daveye »

Yeah there are some tiny tiny marks on them, might just be dust. I get the feeling it was too short. I had two shots just taken with the camera lens of a dark sky that you can see stars on the negative. Might try get them developed.

Yes digital is alot easier lol, but then a DSLR would of cost me what I payed for my telescope. I know what I'd rather have right now!

Maybe I should "borrow" the Atik 16 CCD I was working with at the Uni over the summer...
Davej
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Sheffield (53° 21' N 1° 12' W)
Contact:

Post by Davej »

Hi,
Going to have to go digital I think.
I meant that "I" was going to have to go digital. :lol:

Dave
Meade LX 200 (7"). Odyssey 8" Dob.
11X80 10x50 15x70 bins
Celestron Neximage ccd cam
Daveye
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Post by Daveye »

I know but I feel the same! :D
dazcaz
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:05 pm
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by dazcaz »

There are many problems with film when it comes to astrophotography.

Many printers CAN'T print them.... This is because the machines use the gaps between frames to align the frames when printing. With astrophotography there isn't always a defined edge between one frame and the next so this causes the machine to throw a wobbly.
Because of this most processing labs can't print them.
A trick around this is to have a normal picture each side of an astrograph. Sadly this means that you only get 1/3 of the film to use for astrophotography :(

You could always ask your processing house to delevelop the film but not print it. Then you could go through the negs together and decide the best way forward. It can be done, but not by automatic machines. This will cost you more.

Neg scanners might suffer the same problem. Mine used to.

The reason why B+W and slide printing is more expensive is that 99.999% of all films D+Ped are colour reversal process (C41)
For the lab to process a B+W or slide (E6) film they often have to use a second machine, or at least a totally different batch of chemicals. These chemicals are bought in smaller quantities, they are made in smaller quantities, and thus more expensive. This is why it's so expensive to D+P B+W films.
It's soooo easy to do at home and it's great fun. I dev all my B+W and slide film at home. Priniting it takes a while and means tieing up the bathroom for hours, but it's so rewarding. You don't need a dark room to dev the film, only to print it. Give it a try :)

If you want to shoot B+W and have a high street lab to process it, you can by C41 process B+W films. I'm not a fan of them myself, but they are quite good. The cost SHOULD be the same as a normal colour film.

I rarely shoot film now. Only for fun or special circumstances. Digi is sooooo much easier :)

Darren
I once came last in an astronomy competition.
I was awarded a constellation prize


Skywatcher Explorer 200 HEQ5
Skywatcher Skymax 127 SupaTrak
Celestron C4-R CG-4 mount
Davej
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Sheffield (53° 21' N 1° 12' W)
Contact:

Post by Davej »

Hi,
Tell me about it Darren..
It's soooo easy to do at home and it's great fun. I dev all my B+W and slide film at home.
Been there but it was quite a while since I last developed my own (try developing film in the bathroom with the light blacked out by tape around the door and a black card stuck to the window and two kids wanting to use the bathroom :lol: (going back a few years tho). The feeling you get tho is great when the "washed" images emerge.
Dave
Meade LX 200 (7"). Odyssey 8" Dob.
11X80 10x50 15x70 bins
Celestron Neximage ccd cam
Zeke
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: Wigan
Contact:

Post by Zeke »

I still use film for ordinary pictures but I get them processed on a disc, digitally.
Maybe you could try that.
Never worry!
Konus 500.
8x30 binos.
Canon EOS 1000F.
Tamron 80-210mm telephoto.
Fujifinepix S1000fd.
http://coriantumr.wordpress.com/
Meade ETX 80
dazcaz
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:05 pm
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by dazcaz »

Zeke wrote:I still use film for ordinary pictures but I get them processed on a disc, digitally.
Maybe you could try that.
This might work, but the same machine that scans the neg for printing is the machine that writes the image to disc as JPGs, so you might get the same problem with the scanner not being able to see the frames on the neg strip.

The problem is.... 35MM cameras all wind the film on using a gear driven spool. This spool winds a slighty different amount of film on every time the film is advanced. This variation is caused by factors such as the tension of the film already on the spool, the speed of the wind (a manual wind will vary in speed every time), or the power in the battery and how much film is to be wound on when using a motor wind. The amount of film on the take up spool also plays a major part. Have a look on a neg strip. There's a bigger gap between frames at the end of roll than there is at the beginning.

There is also a huge variation in the position of the first frame on the film. This varies with each camera and how the film's tounge is fed to the take up spool.

If this variation wasn't there, then there would be no problem. Film scanners would know where the first frame was and then wind on a set amount each time. Sadly this isn't the case.

It could be that Daveye's negs are clearly defined (Maybe a plain(dark) blue frame) but the scanners is detecting it as a clear frame and not printing it, as it thinks that it's a nonsense picture of nothing but a clear area with no subject..... If this is the case then a quick look at the negs will show this and they should be able to be printed automatically.

When I used to live in Brum, I used a lab and the instructions to "Print everything regardless of how nonsense it is" always fell on deaf ears.
The lab I use in Cardiff now, is very cheap, very fast and absolutely superb. They dev all films in most formats (including 126!!!), and they print my digi files instantly... I no longer use an over priced pro lab :)

Darren
I once came last in an astronomy competition.
I was awarded a constellation prize


Skywatcher Explorer 200 HEQ5
Skywatcher Skymax 127 SupaTrak
Celestron C4-R CG-4 mount
KendalAstronomer
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:10 pm
Location: London/Kendal (51.5157N,-0.1215E)
Contact:

Post by KendalAstronomer »

I get my slr films done on disk and it has never solved the problem. I used to ask them to print the dark ones too, but was always told by the assistant that there's no point putting instructions on "as they're professionals and will do so anyway". Needless to say I'm a few good photos down... the negatives look good though... not that that's really comforting. :roll:
Daveye
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Post by Daveye »

Hey some helpful replies there!

Yeah I went back to ask them but they say the machine just doesn't recognize it and won't print it. The ones I'd done before had some cloud on them which might have triggered it to print it maybe. I do get them on a CD but it doesn't make a difference to weather there printed or not, they must be scanned after.

The negatives of these shots are very clear, theres no real difference between the frame and the space between the frames. Theres some marks I can clearly see on them. I might try any other ones to a proper developer if such a thing still exists.
goodtime
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:01 pm
Location: 31° 46' 20" N, 106° 13' 54" W
Contact:

Post by goodtime »

Hi all,

It doesn't take many failed rolls of film to cost as much as a ToUcam or a DSI from the colonies...
Andrew
Eyes, binoculars, CubePro, AT72ED, EOS 20Da, DSI II Pro,

There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Post Reply