[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs) Wal-Mart Developing

There are two basic problems with inexpensive photo-labs.

1.  You have to understand their language to get the print setup
appropriate for astrophotography.

2.  You are generally limited to films which can use C-41 processing.

I can solve problem 1. for you with some looking in my notes.  Please be
patient as I am in the middle of sorting, prior to packing.

Problem 2. for good meteor photography is the killer, IMHO.

I have been advised that the best films for meteor photography are
Ilford HP-5 Plus, Agfapan APX 400, and Kodak Tri-X Pan 400 in that
order.  None of them use C-41 process, but film only development is
relatively cheap.  A bigger concern is the availablility of processing. 
For example, in Regina with a population of about 170,000, there is no
local processing of Ilford HP-5 Plus but there is for Agfapan APX 400! 
Tri-X, well about all you need is any B&W capable photolab.

BTW, all films are easily pushed so no speed advantage exists.  They are
all easily home processed also.  It just so happens that HP5 plus has
the earliest time to reciprocity failure closely followed by APX 400. 
Likewise HP-5 plus has a smaller grain size than the others, although
again APX 400 is very close.

So HP-5 Plus is a win-win-win for meteor photography, but second and
third aren't far back.

If you happen to be in a location with inexpensive B&W labs or you want
to do it yourself, I would select one of the three.

OTH, my first efforts at meteor photography used Japan Camera 400 speed
ultra cheap colour and discount processing.  But it was accompanied with
the instructions of Para 1.  !!!!

No meteors, but some great satellite signatures and coloured star trails
impress others!!

BTW, the best way to look for meteor streaks is by digitizing the
picture.  The new HP scanner for $500 US MSRP, is adequate according to
spec (IMHO), the question remains if it really meets spec!

Once you own a scanner, there are no real per copy costs unless you wish
to admire or brag about a particularly fortuitous image  :-)

My summary.  By all means use inexpensive film and bargin processing
until you determine if you like this aspect of meteor observing.  You
will lose some sensitivity, but you won't miss anything spectacular. 
Besides, some things are best enjoyed without monetary pressures, just
like some sensitivity is a whole lot better than none.



Regards,
John
--
John Ohrt,  Regina, SK, Canada
johrt@ibmdot net
References: