CCD or film ?

[Guest peepshow]

Which would yield the best photograph of some of the dimmest and elusive DSO's to photograph?

Either using equipment based upon expensive CCD cameras with subs, stacking etc or a single very long exposure taken on a high class film camera, on 35mm or 2 1/4 square format film?

Does anyone here still use film, I wonder?

[dawson]

Electronic sensors have much better quantum efficiency than film.

There must be people who still ise film, but with the hassle and costs of processing, i suspect they are very few and far between.

James

[dawson]

An interesting paper on the topic I've just found:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6715280/Photographic-Plates-vs-CCD-in-Astronomy

 

James

[dawson]

And remember many people image with a CMOS sensor, not necessary a CCD one. As to how they differ, I've no idea

 

JD

[xanthic]

To capture a dim object with film would need a high ISO and hence would have large crystals in the film emulsion. You've already got "noise" and reduction in resolution built into the film before you've even started.

 

Electronics can be cooled to reduce noise and of course image stacking algorithms make for a much better picture.

[Sheila]

CCD would be the best i suppose, or DSLR with stacked images as ISO 800 is the best setting i found, so multiple subs needed,

more data = better image

[philjay]

I use ccd and dslr and used to use film in the 70s and 80s, I would never go back to film for astro imaging personally due to the hasslevand digital is far easier. However I know of a couple of folks still using film for the odd nostalgic image

[Guest ollypenrice]

Given that amateurs with small telescopes can now take better pictures than the best plate film professionals using in the Anglo Australian Telescope a quarter of a century ago, I think CCD clearly wins, and by a mile. If you look at the last great film exponenets like david Malin you can see that this is so, though for small objects needing professional focal lengths the amateurs are out of it. I have a book of David Malin's pictures and love them. I'm also well aware that he was 100x more expert than I, but I have the modern kit. I want to emphasize my respect for the past great masters, here. But compare;

 

http://messier.obspm.fr/Jpg/m45.jpg

 

with the efforts of a modern amateur with a three inch refractor and CCD;

 

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/i-WQXKB6Z/0/L/M45%20COMPOSITE%20FL-L.jpg

 

Olly

[Guest peepshow]

Thanks to all for replies and to Olly for those two comparative photos. I shall not be buying any film methinks,

but now into reading about David Malin, who had a small galaxy named after him I read............

  http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/photographers_about.asp?photographer=David%20Malin

 

Thanks for mention of him and your link which led me to all those amazing photos.