Goll darn it, this is gittin worse than the downward side of an ol black hole! Richard Harshaw Brilliant Sky Observatory Cave Creek, AZ Sent from my iPad > On Apr 7, 2014, at 9:41 PM, "KenGSikes" <kengsikes@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ok, I know I am about to start a firestorm, but I am going to do it any way. > > Back in the 70's and 80's if one took a picture through a telescope the film > used was usually Tri-X, Kodachrome, or Ectachrome , or if one had the > recourses one of the Kodak 103 films. The Kodak films were 103aE, 103aO and > 103aF. > Bill Anderson and I were lucky that we had purchased each of the 103 films > in a 100 foot rolls. Bill had the capabilities of re-packaging the film in 36 > exposursure rolls. We did all kinds of experiments using the film. > > At this point Bill and Developed what we called the Astro Camera ( See the > Dec issue of Sky & Telescope 1980 or 1981 for this article) Believe me we > go way back, self film development ( D 19 , Microdol, Diafine we tried it > all ( D19 Worked best with the 103 films.) > > Now to my point.....In the early days of astrophotography what one got on B & > W FILM is what was really there. Look at the past issues of S & T and you > will see what I mean REAL pictures (Bill I hope you will jump in here and > help me) > > I am not belittling CCD photography, but today Astrophotography is basically > make it look the way you want it to look. Albert takes alot of pictures, as > do others. Each uses different pallets for color definition as the owner > sees fit and produces great pictures. > > Personally, I do not look at the CCD image as I cannot see that object in > that color in my telescope and I delete the post. This is not meant to demean > what others do , but to keep in the realm of reality as I see it. > > > > Ken Sikes