| Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:34:45 -0500
| Subject: [M]: OK, HEEEELLLLLLP!
|
| After another roll of film that appears to be underexposed after trying =
| to get shots of relatively bright objects like M13, M11, M12 etc. at =
| prime focus of my 10" F/10 LX200 using ISO800 film (incidentally using =
| exposure times in the range of 5 to 7 minutes), I am getting a little =
| bewildered. I am positive that I am doing something (for a lack of any =
| better word) stupid (and yes, I did remove the dew cover for you wise =
| crackers out there!) :-)

Query 1: Are you looking at the prints or at the negatives? The negatives
are all that matters. Automated machinery designed for ordinary snapshots
will *not* make prints of astronomical negatives correctly.

I advise people to use slide film, not print film, unless a way of making
custom prints is available.

Query 2: What do you mean by underexposed? Such pictures *should* have a
pitch-black background (clear orange on the negatives) with just a few
objects visible.

With a 5-minute exposure of M13, you should definitely get *something*.
What do you see on the negatives?

The exposure program is at
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astro/astrosoft.html. But I don't think
exposure time is the problem.

My recommendation? Use slide film (Kodak Elite Chrome 200) for the next
try. Or get custom prints made from your negatives.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Meade Won't sell parts!, John Ruthroff
Next message: [M]: Re: LX200 8" vs 10", f/10 vs f/6, Mike McAuley
Next message in thread: [M]: Re: Re: "OK, HELLLLLLLP!", Doug Azwell