Shooting the Milky Way on film?

[crisgil24]

Is this even possible? Examples? Tips? I shoot 35mm and will be soon spending time in Grand Teton, Yellowstone, and Glacier NP's.

 

[dxqcanada]

Yes, believe it or not, we used to shoot everything with film ... Astrophotography Basics: Tech Pub P-150: Getting Started

OK, not trying to sound condescending ... but it was hard to resist the reply.
There are aspects of long exposures that will be noted on the film data sheet, so depending on the shutter speed you may have to make an adjustment.

Personally, I have never really tried to do astrophotography ... though I always wanted to, in the back of my mind.

There should still be numerous resources on the web for film shooters ... ex. Simple Astrophotography For Beginners - Easy Astrophotography Tips

 

[TCampbell]

Exposure may be difficult without a tracker. In the pre-digital days the common film speeds would get you up to ISO 400. I recall Kodak having a 1000 speed film for a while (it's gone now). But Milky Way images are often shot at, say, ISO 1600. ISO 800 would be perhaps a bit low (but I'm sure you could find examples.)

You have a limited amount of time before the rotation of the Earth makes the stars begin to grow trails.

On a full-frame (35mm) you'd divide 600 by the focal length of the lens -- and many people use 500 instead of 600 to be a bit more conservative. A wide lens is helpful for more time, but a low focal ratio lens might even be more important to allow the film to collect more light.

I haven't purchased film in a few years. I see numerous 800 ASA film choices. I see you can get 3200 ASA (Ilford Delta) B&W film. High ASA film is typically very grainy. Here's a flickr group pool with examples: ILFORD DELTA 3200 Professional Black and White Film

Are you planning to do your own developing and printing (do you have access to a darkroom?) or are you planning to send it in for processing? I ask because Milky Way images (digital) typically have their histograms "stretched" to bring out detail that isn't so easily spotted in the native "out of the camera" exposure. There's a lot of post processing that goes into astrophotos. This is much easier to do in software then it is to do in a darkroom. But if you send it out to a lab then there's just going to do fairly straight printing and you won't have that level of control.

 

[crisgil24]

Yes, believe it or not, we used to shoot everything with film ... Astrophotography Basics: Tech Pub P-150: Getting Started

OK, not trying to sound condescending ... but it was hard to resist the reply.
There are aspects of long exposures that will be noted on the film data sheet, so depending on the shutter speed you may have to make an adjustment.

Personally, I have never really tried to do astrophotography ... though I always wanted to, in the back of my mind.

There should still be numerous resources on the web for film shooters ... ex. Simple Astrophotography For Beginners - Easy Astrophotography Tips

 

[crisgil24]

Thanks for the resources just got back from Yellowstone excited to see my photos appreciate the help.

 

[crisgil24]

Exposure may be difficult without a tracker. In the pre-digital days the common film speeds would get you up to ISO 400. I recall Kodak having a 1000 speed film for a while (it's gone now). But Milky Way images are often shot at, say, ISO 1600. ISO 800 would be perhaps a bit low (but I'm sure you could find examples.)

You have a limited amount of time before the rotation of the Earth makes the stars begin to grow trails.

On a full-frame (35mm) you'd divide 600 by the focal length of the lens -- and many people use 500 instead of 600 to be a bit more conservative. A wide lens is helpful for more time, but a low focal ratio lens might even be more important to allow the film to collect more light.

I haven't purchased film in a few years. I see numerous 800 ASA film choices. I see you can get 3200 ASA (Ilford Delta) B&W film. High ASA film is typically very grainy. Here's a flickr group pool with examples: ILFORD DELTA 3200 Professional Black and White Film

Are you planning to do your own developing and printing (do you have access to a darkroom?) or are you planning to send it in for processing? I ask because Milky Way images (digital) typically have their histograms "stretched" to bring out detail that isn't so easily spotted in the native "out of the camera" exposure. There's a lot of post processing that goes into astrophotos. This is much easier to do in software then it is to do in a darkroom. But if you send it out to a lab then there's just going to do fairly straight printing and you won't have that level of control.

 

[crisgil24]

No I don't have access to a darkroom or any knowledge of how to process the film myself but where I was in Yellowstone the Milky was visible to the naked eye unless I was seeing clouds. Thanks for the info much appreciated