Astrophotography with a view camera on large format film?

[Balt]

Hi all,

Due to the untimely demise of my Hasselblad digital back I've been forced back into the film world. What initially seemed a terrible thing, is now giving me so much more joy than I ever anticipated it's hard to describe (I should add I'm an amateur, just doing this for fun, not for money - I would think very differently given how much more time it takes to work the photos now!). I in the meantime am processing my own E-6, C-41 as well as B&W and have rediscovered the beauty of the various film types.

I've always enjoyed astrophotography but have not done any film literally in decades. So I'm now piggybacking the Hasselblad as well as the Fuji 6x17 with some pretty decent results.

For wide field work, film is obviously still the way to go (at least until gigapixel CCD sensors become mainstream…). I have thought about experimenting with a view camera and large format film. Has anyone ever done that? Google is surprisingly helpless when searching for "astrophotography view camera".

Any hints, also on where/how to obtain an inexpensive view camera (i.e. sub ~$2k including a lens) to play around with would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers

- Balt

[Misirlou]

I had the same idea in the late '90's, and found absolutely no info, so I never followed through. My plan was to try a 4X5 press camera (for best rigidity, and hey, who needs movements for astro?), with the fastest wide lens I had. That happened to be a 90mm Super Angulon.

I've got no idea what 4X5 equipment is costing these days, but something like a Speed Graphic and a 90 f/5.6 Super Angulon would have to be way under $2K.

What sort of tracking rig did have in mind for mounting the 4X5?

[Balt]

Hi,

interesting, I didn't know there were rigid options, I'll look into a press camera, thanks!

I'm using a GT-1HD mount, permanently installed at my friend's observatory. To mount the cameras on top of the existing telescope I have dovetail plates, the mount itself can carry an additional 60 lbs easy, it's not loaded very heavily at the moment.

Cheers

- Balt

[Craig Lamson]

Hi,

interesting, I didn't know there were rigid options, I'll look into a press camera, thanks!

I'm using a GT-1HD mount, permanently installed at my friend's observatory. To mount the cameras on top of the existing telescope I have dovetail plates, the mount itself can carry an additional 60 lbs easy, it's not loaded very heavily at the moment.

Cheers

- Balt

The are a number of links on google for this subject, and I know in the past I've seen original 4x5 astro images...''

http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/large.pdf

[Balt]

Interesting, thanks for sharing this link. Are there any particular press cameras to stay away from? Looks like there are numerous decent shape Horseman cameras in the sub $1k range.

[Fine_Art]

I know this is not what you want to do, but I would really suggest a DSLR instead.

The most important thing for astro is good tracking which is difficult using a heavy camera. The new DSLRs are so light any basic motorized mount will have no problem. Also for 4x5 you are not after telephoto detail, you are after wide field. A 50 or 85 type prime lens will give you very good quality images for wide field.

The other thing is due to the faint light you need long exposure or many stacks of shots. Due to the "seeing" variability any long exposure will have portions of poor atmospheric conditions. With DSLRs you use software to grade the files so that you can do your stacks using the best conditions. With film you are rolling the dice every second on what is being recorded.

[Balt]

Hi, and thanks for taking the time to respond. I've done some DSLR astrophotography (see http://www.indermuehle.com) and do find it is a joy as well. But having recently rediscovered film, I'm really wanting to expose to a 4x5" size piece!

[Graham Welland]

Not sure that I agree with the DSLR weight argument btw. Whilst a little larger my experience with 4x5 is that they are arguably lighter than a DSLR/fast lens combo. There's a lot of air in a 4x5 ... Unless of course you go for an old steel behemoth of course.

[Balt]

The Hasselblad with a 120 Zeiss lens weighs about twice that of the Canon 5D MkIII… I wasn't expecting a press camera (or view camera) to come even close.

[ondebanks]

Hi Balt,

Fellow astrophotographer here. DSLR and medium format film up to 6x9...and some digital back work - although it is very limited by thermal noise and a maximum 60 second exposure limit.

Few people ever tried or mastered 4x5 inch astrophotography, and I was not one of them! Impediments included slow lenses, maintaining film flatness, the limited choice of sheet film emulsions (mainly slow), nailing critical focus wide open (was the ground glass in exactly the same plane/registration as the film holder?), the price and inconvenience of handling sheet film and finding places to develop it...

But I reckon for the committed, it is definitely worth trying for the challenge and the fun of it.

If I were going about this, I would try a rigid (lens-cone and helical focus mount, not bellows focus) 4x5 camera. Some custom 4x5 astro cameras/adapters were made and may still be available...in the US, until quite recently, Hutech used sell Japanese-made Planet Town and Mitsuboshi items, featuring things like vacuum-backs to keep the film flat during a long exposure, and wide-aperture adapters onto Takahashi and Borg APO refractors.

Ray

[Fine_Art]

Not sure that I agree with the DSLR weight argument btw. Whilst a little larger my experience with 4x5 is that they are arguably lighter than a DSLR/fast lens combo. There's a lot of air in a 4x5 ... Unless of course you go for an old steel behemoth of course.

My APSC DSLR is 433g body only. With a 50 it is about 1kg.

[lelouarn]

What film would be recommended for this kind of work ? I've heard that long-ish exposures tend to introduce color shifts in some films.

[ondebanks]

What film would be recommended for this kind of work ? I've heard that long-ish exposures tend to introduce color shifts in some films.

Astrophotographers have always had different criteria for film selection to "regular" photographers.

To pick up faint deep-sky detail, within a reasonable length of time, one needs very low reciprocity failure, at least moderate (ISO 200-400) box ISO rating, perhaps 1-2 stops of pushability without hitting golfball grain, and ideally, extended red sensitivity for nebulae. Kodak E200 was all of that. That film is gone. 

Also gone are the great Kodak Tech Pan (needed hypersensitisation beforehand), Kodak E100S and the not quite as good E100G, Fuji Provia 400F, Fuji Astia 100F, the original Fuji Super G, Fuji Superia 100CN, the original Agfa Optima 400, Agfa 200RS and 1000RS, Konica Centuria 400 and 800, and a slew of Kodak ISO 400-1000 print films from the late '90s/early 2000s.

What we are left with doesn't really fill the gaps. In many cases, the same film was "improved" but the improved daytime performance was a setback for astro performance; a loss of red sensitivity or an increase in reciprocity failure/colour shift.

So. The remaining Fuji slide films are winners on low reciprocity failure, with modest colour shifts (Provia is better than Velvia), but no extended red sensitivity. They are a good choice for star-trails. From Kodak, Ektar 100 and Portra 400 have good grain and green-blue responses, but a colour shift which really hits their red response. In B&W, Fuji Acros has amazingly low reciprocity failure, but low base speed and poor red sensitivity. Ilford Delta 3200 has raw box speed, but poor reciprocity and grain and it is not competitive with the signal to noise of a DSLR at the same ISO 3200 setting.

Have a look at the work of James Cormier aka "Nightfly" on Flickr, Cloud Nights, Fluidr, nightflyphotography.blogspot. He has been testing and shooting a lot of different films for astrophotography with a Pentax 67 kit.

Ray

[lelouarn]

Thanks a lot for the info about the different films...

[Neil Folberg]

Hello,

I have done a lot of film astrophotography and some digital, much of it piggybacked and wide field.

I explored exactly what you were talking about in the early '90's and heard about a vacuum back for 4x5. You need rigidity and film flatness - so you need some kind of vacuum back. People made these things also.

But I think you are probably wasting your time. In the end, I mostly used my Rollei 6x6 with Ektachrome film and also with hypered Tech Pan and got good results. I also used a 6x9 cm vacuum back with roll film made by Hutech and a short Borg 100mm refractor telescope. It worked great, I still have it, though I haven't used it in years - it mounts on the back of a telescope. Focus is tricky - you have to learn to use knife-edge focusing techniques which requires some practice. This is for sale (the 6x9 camera, not the telescope) if you're interested.

What happens is that photographing stars is not like anything else. First you want maximum sharpness at maximum aperture to shorten exposure times. This is already tricky with large sheet film and those large format lenses are not made to perform like that. A lens like the Zeiss 110mm f/2 for my Rollei does magnificently edge-to-edge at about f4 and the film was held rigid and flat.

Then, there is no advantage to the increased size of 4x5 as you basically have tiny point sources of light. There are few mid tones and the goal is mostly to get enough contrast. In wide field photos you also want nebulas and galaxies to show up, however small, and this often requires filters - maybe a so-called deep sky or nebular filter which enhances contrast slightly in those wavelengths. So a well exposed and well processed 6x9 or 6x6 negative will probably exceed or at least match the resolution of larger film and be sharper, flatter and easier to work with.

Hope this helps! Look up my book Celestial Nights published by Aperture in 2001 and later re-issued by Abbeville Press to see what I did with these photos. The book is out of print but is still available on my web site and you can find used copies here-and-there.

Good luck, I'm happy to answer questions -

Neil