Hi there,

 I have this problem. Recently, I brought my film strip to a professional photographer who should develop it and should also burn a cd. When I came back a few days later, his assistant gave me three maps with pictures. I said that I brought only one. Cos she didn't know which film was mine, she told me to look through all the pictures. So I just flew over them and figured out which was mine. I had a 24-film. But there where only about 11 pictures there. And on the negative strip therewas absolutely nothing to see where should have been about 16. Well because of that, the film development machine did not know where to cut the negative and therefore where which picture began. In result, the few photos I got often showed two half-pictures on one photo. And on the cd there are lots of pictures that are not mine and only in the end there are my 11 astropictures.

What to do? I am absolutely sure that there should be these 16 pictures somewhere. I am sure that I safety cap from the tube or the camera objective (otherwise it would not have been possible to look through where you usually look through before taking a picture [don't know the name for it :) ]  ). I also took pictures of the moon craters with my 102M with eyepiece projection. There must be something.

 Thanks for your help!

 Kate

You need to take at least two or three daytime photos before you take any night sky photos. This will give the machine a reference for cutting.   Then you also need to explain to the developer that you have night sky photos and to have the machine print them all and allow you to make the choice which to keep and which to discard.   believe me, you will discard more than you will keep.   

Moon shots should have been bright enough no matter if under or over exposed to give a reference point for the machine to start cutting, But Deep Sky Objects are another matter, The machine isn't sensitive enough to see faint objects or even stars. That's way it is recommended to shoot a few daylight shots first. I also shot the last couple on the roll during the day time.  
If you have enough exposure on DSOs you should at least see the stars when looking at the negatives. If you have too much exposure you exceed the reciprocity of the film emulsion and the image will look like a washed out brown color with nothing more.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your advice with the daylight pictures before and eventually also after taking astro pictures.

Is the the fact with the emulsion and reciprocity also possible with 400ASA, f/2.8 and 16 minutes of exposure time? I guess there should be something to see.

 Otherwise the pictures are lost. I'll have to do them again.

Greetings, Kate

Yes, reciprocity failure pertains to all film speeds and types. Nothing much you can do about that. Beyond a certain time of exposure you don't pick up more useful signal. And if your exposure is too short you don't pick up enough. The trick is finding the middle ground.

If your exposure time is far too long, the film should be fogged.

A better idea for exposing your film for the auto-processor to see where to cut: Make a closeup exposure (in focus) of a business card or a simply index card with your name and phone number on it.

It's much easier getting started in astrophotography with a digital camera (you can check your exposure and focus on the spot, without waiting for processing). If you must stick with film, then visit Michael Covington's web site where you'll find a helpful exposure calculator.

Not only is focal ratio very important when using film, but so is the aperture of the lens.  16 minutes against the dark night sky might not be enough.  400asa can go a lot longer than that. I took a shot of the Orion constellation using 400 asa film for 25 minutes, I wish I would have let it go about twice that long.   

This has been enhanced with photoshop to bring out the nebula a little better and add the spikes on the stars. If I had let it go longer I might have been able to bring out more stars and the Barnards loop also. 

i used to take a light frame every other image, a micro second flashlight worked for me, but you need to be there too or have a developer know exactly what to do- if they dont- sometimes they think its useless and toss it- or try to correct the exposure which they shouldnt- my best advice is-- ditch the film altogether

tasco-60mm:

i used to take a light frame every other image, a micro second flashlight worked for me, but you need to be there too or have a developer know exactly what to do- if they dont- sometimes they think its useless and toss it- or try to correct the exposure which they shouldnt- my best advice is-- ditch the film altogether

I would actually recommend everyone give it a good try for a while.  Film photography is a dying art that requires a different kind of skill and patience. With the ever growing popularity of digital photography and easy to use automated digital cameras that skill and patience is taking a side seat by many amateur photographers.  
There are things that film photography can teach a person that digital photography cannot. one of them might just be a little humility.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty to learn about digital cameras and digital photography, especially when you get into the pre-planning along with stacking and post-processing like we do,  but it's too easy just to delete and forget your failed attempts.  Sometimes it might take months before you can use up a complete roll of film when using it for astrophotography.  When you have to spend more time on each individual frame hoping you got it right, then waiting to fill the roll of film and waiting to get that film developed before you see the results of your efforts, there is a tendency to give you more of an appreciation for the art, and for the efforts the many other photographers put into their images.    It's a lot tougher to digitally manipulate a print than it is a digital image, although you can do some enhancements after scanning the print to disk, you're more or less stuck with what you got.

i guess it is has its learning merits-- it cost more with all the film and developing though- re reading the previous post, i doubt youll get 16 minutes at f/2.8 using 400ISO- i remember doing alot of bracketing (right word?)- i mean 2-4-6-8 minute exposures, along with extensive drift alignment (guiding wasnt for poor people like me at the time) if it matters any- i did get my best from 400 ISO-- 800 was noisy, and my attempts with 1600 looked like sandpaper

Well my times of non-guiding-possibility is over since I have an Equatorial Vixen GP mount. So, there should really be something to see on the film, shouldn't it?

 Thanks for your answers.

Kate

yes and no-- but it still wont match today's DSLR's- and it doesnt take long for film cost (buying and developing) to overwhelm the cost of digital camera- heres a link with a couple added at the bottom-  youll find more if you look around

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/FILM_DIG.HTM