|
One of the hottest debates in astrophotography is the use of CCD cameras or Film. There are distinct differences between the two mediums and there are also some very subtle differences often overlooked in the usual debates. I will show the most widely discussed differences between the two formats, and why I choose film vs CCD imaging. Everyone will have their own experiences and preferences, so this is my personal discussion.
The one thing any beginner to astrophotography will quickly learn is that almost no-one is talking about film anymore. The reasons are many, and CCD imaging does indeed offer some distinct advantages over film photography:
- Zero on-going costs. Once you buy your CCD imager and any specific controller software (if needed), you can image forever with no additional cost. There are no consumables such as film and development cost. This is a major advantage, and if you can afford the initial startup cost of a high-end CCD platform this may well be the best choice for you.
- Immediate Feedback. You can get your CCD images back as soon as your exposures are over. In most cases you will need to do some computer processing, but you can see right away if you have made some errors and need to re-shoot. In film, you must wait until you get the film developed. This alone makes learning astrophotography easier with digital, as the immediate feedback is a big help in the learning process.
- Shorter individual exposures. While the end result may be a total exposure equivalent to film, the very short individual exposures mean you have less tracking problems. You can have a slighyly inaccurate setup and still get decent results!
- CCD imaging is able to reduce the effects of light pollution (or the moon) much better than film. You can shoot in city lights and still have acceptable results.
- For bright objects, such as planets and the moon, you can stack and automatically process hundreds of short exposures to increase the signal to noise ratio, and to select just the frames that were captured during very brief periods of excellent seeing conditions. This allows you to produce stunning planetary photographs virtually impossible with film. If you are mainly interested in planetary or lunar photography, CCD imaging will blow film away in almost every way.
So why do I use film?
I shoot with film for 3 main reasons.
- I specialize in deep-sky astrophotography. What I expect in my final result is both exceptional wide field of views, deep color saturation, and fine resolution for enlargements suitable for prints. I find the end result of a film image the equivalent of a DSLR image and in some cases a Hi-End CCD imager. Film imaging of deep-sky objects always surpasses low end CCD imagers, webcams, and regular digital cameras. Only planetary, solar and lunar photography benefit by using an inexpensive CCD imaging system, and since I specialize in deep-sky photography, those systems are not adequate for me.
- As discussed above, digital imaging uses shorter exposures. This has it's advantages, but there is HUGE disadvantage too. Those very short exposures can make it difficult to correct errors. Film is MUCH more forgiving. If an error occurs in the pohotography session, I can easily make the correction and the effect is never seen in the final image. With film you can walk in front of the camera, bump the scope, cover the scope when an aircraft flys through the field of view, etc... All of these will not have an effect on the final result. Think of film as being in slow motion - you can spot errors and correct them before they have a chance to ruin the image. I have fallen alsleep while guiding and knocked the guidestar out of th field of view/. I corrected it within 10 seconds and there is no effect on the final image. Digital sensors are so sensitive that tiny gear errors often become a visible problem. This is why the BEST digital images are done with very expensive mounts. Film users can get by with plumbing pipe and duct tape!
- I live on a very limited, fixed income. I simply can not afford to invest several thousand dollars into the INITIAL cost of a decent DSLR or Hi-End CCD camera. While those two systems have almost ZERO on-going costs vs the purchase of film and developing, I can not afford the initial start-up cost. I can, however, drop $7 for a roll of film every few weeks and $15 to have the slides developed.
- Film imaging requires the least intrusion into the astrophotography session. While DSLRS do not need many additional peripherals, the other CCD imagers require a computer, monitor, and extra power supply, and all the cables that go along with that.
- Film images can be made with less work. Take a look at this photo. It was shot with 15 minutes prep time and ZERO post processing. That is, the photograph came straight from the developer this way. It is an uncropped, untouched image, with no computer enhancement, stacking, flat frames, or dark frames etc... The photo is a SINGLE, unfiltered 30 minurte exposure on Fuijichrome 400F Provia. It was shot with the Meade LXD75 8" SN and guided by hand with an Orion 910mm f/l guidescope.
So the bottom line for me is that Film imaging gives me the best quality deep-sky imaging at the lowest investment.
The Arguments
"Film images are not as good!" This one I love to tackle. If you compare SIMILAR priced setups, film will always outperform CCD imagers in image quality, resolution, and field of view. While expensive dedicated CCD imagers can be purchased that rival or out-perform film, their cost is far greater than a typical film setup. Also, MOST amateur astrophotographers do not buy these very expensive hi-end digital CCD cameras. So when comparing the average amateur astrophotographer setup with a typical film setup the results can equal or surpass them. This is NOT to say that film photography is superior to all CCD images.. not at all! There are specific areas where CCD imaging can easily outperform film, such as imaging in light polluted skies and during a full moon. Also, the much shorter INDIVIDUAL exposures of CCD imaging require a less demanding effort on the part of the photographer, especially when combined with an autoguider setup.
 |
|
 |
But it is interesting to compare actual results between the two platforms. While I wanted to show a comparison between the BEST images from both platforms at comparable priced setups, I could not find a single one that even came close to having similar results. When choosing a system on price, there just is no comparison, film results exceed CCD in every respect (for deep sky work). So here I have found some exceptional CCD images but the cost of these systems far exceed the film system. The two images (LEFT) show very similar photographic results.
In the photos on the LEFT were taken with a TAK FSQ 106N APO telescope, EM-11 mount, and an SBIG ST-10XME camera. It was total of 2 1/2 hours of exposure. The total cost of this setup was over $14,000 US. The images on the RIGHT were single 40 minute exposures with a stock Meade LXD75 8" Schmidt Newtonian, a 20-year old Olympus OM-1 camera and $7 worth of film (Fuji Provia 400F). Total cost of this setup was under $1,500.
"Film is dead!" yeh yeh yeh... Anyone who says that has never traveled as much as I have. Just stop in any country outside the USA or Japan and you will find that film is going strong. Go to any 3rd world country and you will be hard pressed to find ANY digital cameras. Cheap disposable film cameras are everywhere, in every gas station and street corner. 90% of the world does not even own a home computer, and so film will be here for a long time. On the net, where 100% of users have access to a computer, of course the perspective is narrow. Go to Bangladesh, or Nairobi and see how many computers or digital cameras you find. Trek across rural China, or hike in Peru. You will find film cameras everywhere. Film is not dead by a long shot.
"No one advertises film imaging anymore!" One major reason for the lack of popularity of film imaging is simple economics. Almost every astronomy store will showcase CCD images over film for a variety of reasons, but you can not overlook the #1 reason behind any advertising, SALES. There is virtually zero profit from film imaging. Telescope manufacturers do not produce film cameras, or film. . Since an astronomy businesses will make no money from you using a film camera, there is no incentive for them to highlight the use of film. But you must not confuse the lack of sales with a lack of quality. In almost every product produced in the world, quality takes a very distant second to quantity and popularity. Everything from automobiles to computers will show that the most popular model is not necessarily the best option. Ask Macintosh computer users about this! As a side note, the best and most popular film cameras are no longer in production and can be bought for very little money in second hand stores and on-line auctions.
But this leads to what is "better"? Better cost? Better user experience? Ease of use? There is no one answer! You have to judge each item on your own experience, skill, financial status, and yes, ego! In many cases, anyone who has invested a great deal of money into something will have a very difficult time admitting that a cheaper alternative is available. When asked for a recommendation to gain similar results, they will usually promote the same item they own, or one costing even more. It's just too embarrassing for the average person to tell you "Hey, you can get the same results I do with this cheaper model!". The only way you can get an honest feel for a new item is to explore the results others have made, and if possible, test them for yourself.
"Film is more expensive in the long run!"
First, this is an irrevelent argument if you simply do not have the initial high start up funds to go digital. That ends this argument for me. Second, what is the "long run"? My Olympus OM-1 is over 26 years old. Do you expect to be using the SAME digital camera 26 years from now? A roll of film and development cost less than $20. A Hutech modified 350D digital SLR (DSLR) cost $1300 and its life time is very likely less than 3 years. This means, one needs to shoot about 50 rolls in 3 years for a DSLR to cost less than a film camera. 50 rolls of film would last me about 5 years. And I did not even take into account all the computer equipment and more expensive mount that a digital system may require.
"Professional Astronomers have all gone digital!" Yes, that is true. But most professional astronomers have little personal investment in their equipment. Universities have a lot more money to play with than you or I. Also, most professional astronomers do scientific research with their equipment, and hi-end CCD imaging has many advantages over film when it comes to scientific applications.
So in the end, it's a very personal choice and must be made with all the facts available. If you are starting out from scratch, with very little experience in astrophotography then a low cost CCD imager may be the best choice. If however, you have the film equipment, and are short on cash, then film may be the better choice. Film is extremely portable, requiring no additional power or computers as some CCD imaging does. If you have lots of experience, you may find film a pleasant surprise from all the hi-tech gadgets required, and enjoy the simple pleasure of true photography for a change.
|
So I purchased a Meade 8" f/4 Schmidt Newtonian telescope, Orion 910mm focal length Guidescope, STI Stiletto focuser. and a roll of Fujichrome 400F Provia slide film. I still had my 26+ year old Olympus OM-1 camera and knew it would do well.
All the accesories arrived first (of course) followed by a two week delay getting the scope. I quickly set it up in my back yard (left), and sat back and admired my new toy!