Fast Wides vs "slow" wides and night photography

[Drew Wiley]

There are entire forums dedicated to amateur astrophotography and analogous night photography. Some of these are pretty interesting and might give some clues.
In general, this is one application where digital capture does better.

[Pfsor]

As for the post above, I would invite Pfsor to go ahead and explain further. Considering I can use a 14mm f/2.8 (physical aperture size of 5mm) just fine on 35mm film or my DSLR and capture plenty of stars, more so than any LF lens at a smaller f/# aperture but bigger physical aperture size in my experience, I would say that empirically I must disagree.

You see, that's one thing that I don't do - pushing people to knowledge they refuse albeit freely available on the net at their fingertip. Go to any astrophotography forum and start your game there, if there is anybody patient enough you can have an interesting experience. Google Pinpoint light source exposure and wonder first.

[Corran]

"Googling" astrophotography gives hundreds of thousands of hits, 98% of which are related to digital photography, as one would expect. This is specifically a LF website, so what I am asking is to better explain and/or give links to better provide information specific to LF shooting of startrails (or whatever topic is at hand). And for your information, I did Google it, several times in fact as you've made the same vague explanation on this forum a number of times, which helps exactly 0 people. Results from my search yielded NO large format specific information nor a concise source of information - in fact I also found sources that contradicted your statement. And as I mentioned, my direct experience also informs me that your assertion is not correct, or at least not wholly correct (there may be variables or considerations you or I assume which were or were not accounted for).

Therefore, I ask again - if you would like to contribute to the greater knowledge base here, specifically with regard to LF photography, perhaps you can further explain rather than pointing vaguely in the direction of another forum that likely has no practicing LF photographers on it.

[Bob Salomon]

"Googling" astrophotography gives hundreds of thousands of hits, 98% of which are related to digital photography, as one would expect. This is specifically a LF website, so what I am asking is to better explain and/or give links to better provide information specific to LF shooting of startrails (or whatever topic is at hand). And for your information, I did Google it, several times in fact as you've made the same vague explanation on this forum a number of times, which helps exactly 0 people. Results from my search yielded NO large format specific information nor a concise source of information - in fact I also found sources that contradicted your statement. And as I mentioned, my direct experience also informs me that your assertion is not correct, or at least not wholly correct (there may be variables or considerations you or I assume which were or were not accounted for).

Therefore, I ask again - if you would like to contribute to the greater knowledge base here, specifically with regard to LF photography, perhaps you can further explain rather than pointing vaguely in the direction of another forum that likely has no practicing LF photographers on it.

Just for my own curiosity, why would doing it on large format require anything other then doing it on medium format or 35mm? Other then the size of the tripod and head.

[Corran]

The assertion that only the physical aperture size matters means that shooting on LF is inherently different from smaller formats due to the differences in relative size of the aperture for a given field of view and f/stop. His statement would then posit that a wide-angle lens on 4x5 like my 58mm XL shot at f/5.6 (~10mm aperture size) should capture more stars than my 14mm f/2.8 (~5mm aperture size) on 35mm or DSLR. I have found this to be incorrect, hence my inquiry.

[StoneNYC]

Listen to Bob mostly and ignore the rest is my suggestion.

However from personal experience f/16 with 100 speed film will only give faint trails, either 400 speed film or f/11 or f/8 would be best.

Film flatness... You're pointing upward, yes temps at night change, but slowly, don't worry about that.

Sharpness wide open... You're shooting star trails, it's not really that much of a concern to be honest.

So most of the "technical" differences with lenses are mostly irrelevant for shooting stars on LF except focusing on the GG.

The weight of each lens is often listed with a quick Google search. Just make a list of the lenses you are considering and their weight.

Also look at filter size, the nikons are cheap but often have HUGE filters on front and rear so that's cost prohibitive if you use color filters. Schneider often have smaller rear filters which at least leaves you an option to have a filter smaller or equal to 77mm where the cost limit for me personally is, anything bigger gets much more costly.

Go shoot 4 sheets tonight with some Acros100 30 minutes each. Use f/8 f/11 f/16 f/22 and find out yourself.

[Drew Wiley]

The shorter the lens, the more film plane issues come into play. Real astro addicts obsess about plane accuracy, and sometimes even add vac backs to MF SLR's.
Just getting a fun shot or two is different.

[FredrickSummers]

For star point light the real aperture size (not the nominal one) is decisive. That is the reason that your 90/8 lens (with a real aperture 11.25mm) gives you a worse result than 210/5,6 lens (with the real aperture size 37.5mm). Star tracks are just traces of star pinpoint light rotating on your film.

I highly suggest to learn the basics of star photography before you venture to buying lenses for that purpose. It pays.

I would challange that as well from experience. I have shot stars with digital, and my best lens was (well, I do still have it) the Minolta 16mm fisheye. I also had a Rokinon 35mm f1.4 which has a huge "real aperture" but, if I stoped it down to f2.8 and the Minolta wide open, even with the same exposure the starts were slightly brighter, but there were more of them (within the same area). I have tried it on a number of lenses and the "real aperture" as you call it was not the determining factors. I also never said the lens was for that purpose, just that it was a consideration of getting faster over slower. If I'm buying a lens I may as well consider all potential uses of it, at least that is my idea. I do have my digital kit (two actually, a6000 for night I normally use my Rokinon 12mm f2 which is quite impressive of a lens) as well as my A99 which a handfull of lenses. I used the a99 this past winter to conduct a test between various 50mm for the mount, and the one with the SMALLEST "real aperture" the 50mm f2.8 macro, actually had the best performance and most visible stars. You do also realize that its not just how bright, but a faster lens will pick up more starts within the given time, right? That, coverage (coverage is normally measured at f22, how bad is fall of at larger apertures), and flare charastics is what I was asking for on that part. Do you have any star/star trail images from large format to share?

[konakoa]

I'd love to do some "stars as points" but I just don't think that would work on large format...

Fredrick, it can be done. I've been working with and using my 4x5 camera for astrophotography for just about a decade now. One of the lenses I keep on hand for the sole purpose of astrophotography is the Nikon 90mm f/4.5. For sharp, pin-point stars across the entire frame, it's no good wide open at 4.5. Sorry. Every time I've tried it wide open stars take on a UFO-like shape in the corners due to diffraction in the lens. However, once stopped down to f/8 the lens is really good, corner to corner. If this also corresponds to the similar but slower 90mm f/8 Nikkor used wide open at f/8 I can't say. I don't have one of those lenses. But I can confirm the 4.5 works nicely once stopped down.

I've never done star trails with the 90mm f/4.5. It may very well be just fine wide open for that.

I've attached two images below. One is a equatorial setup I use for the camera. The other is the result (taken with the Nikon 90mm f/4.5 lens.)

[FredrickSummers]

There are entire forums dedicated to amateur astrophotography and analogous night photography. Some of these are pretty interesting and might give some clues.
In general, this is one application where digital capture does better.

I'm well aware of it and last winter was all over with digital. I still have that, but for one, the fun factor just isn't there when you can take the picture, see how it came out, adjust, and do this though the night until you have what you want. Also I just love using my 4x5, so much so I have kicked around the idea of selling my A99 setup. It may do it better, for points of light, but its just not fun Also I think film does star trails better. Leave any digital camera "on" for even minutes, forget hours and the noise would be a killer for the image. Digital star trails are either many 30sec-2min exposures combined together in software OR (and this has become very popular) a single exposure ran though software that "simulates" star trails. It just takes away the fun for me, plus I want to be able to put my star trail image on my light table and just gaze in awe. (Chromes on a light table has not got old yet by a long shot!)

"Googling" astrophotography gives hundreds of thousands of hits, 98% of which are related to digital photography, as one would expect. This is specifically a LF website, so what I am asking is to better explain and/or give links to better provide information specific to LF shooting of startrails (or whatever topic is at hand). And for your information, I did Google it, several times in fact as you've made the same vague explanation on this forum a number of times, which helps exactly 0 people. Results from my search yielded NO large format specific information nor a concise source of information - in fact I also found sources that contradicted your statement. And as I mentioned, my direct experience also informs me that your assertion is not correct, or at least not wholly correct (there may be variables or considerations you or I assume which were or were not accounted for).

Therefore, I ask again - if you would like to contribute to the greater knowledge base here, specifically with regard to LF photography, perhaps you can further explain rather than pointing vaguely in the direction of another forum that likely has no practicing LF photographers on it.

Thank you. There are hudreds of thousands of posts/threads/fourms/blogs/etc on the subject, but only little bits about film and I've only found a few items that include large format, and many topics not addressed and it normally just goes to "experiment".

The assertion that only the physical aperture size matters means that shooting on LF is inherently different from smaller formats due to the differences in relative size of the aperture for a given field of view and f/stop. His statement would then posit that a wide-angle lens on 4x5 like my 58mm XL shot at f/5.6 (~10mm aperture size) should capture more stars than my 14mm f/2.8 (~5mm aperture size) on 35mm or DSLR. I have found this to be incorrect, hence my inquiry.

My experience mirrors yours. My best two night sky lenses on my digital actually have the smaller "real apertures".

Listen to Bob mostly and ignore the rest is my suggestion.

However from personal experience f/16 with 100 speed film will only give faint trails, either 400 speed film or f/11 or f/8 would be best.

Film flatness... You're pointing upward, yes temps at night change, but slowly, don't worry about that.

Sharpness wide open... You're shooting star trails, it's not really that much of a concern to be honest.

So most of the "technical" differences with lenses are mostly irrelevant for shooting stars on LF except focusing on the GG.

The weight of each lens is often listed with a quick Google search. Just make a list of the lenses you are considering and their weight.

Also look at filter size, the nikons are cheap but often have HUGE filters on front and rear so that's cost prohibitive if you use color filters. Schneider often have smaller rear filters which at least leaves you an option to have a filter smaller or equal to 77mm where the cost limit for me personally is, anything bigger gets much more costly.

Go shoot 4 sheets tonight with some Acros100 30 minutes each. Use f/8 f/11 f/16 f/22 and find out yourself.

Thanks Stone, helpful as always The nikkor 90 4.5 has an 82mm filter thread. I have the weights down, its just a very different thing to feel them and have them mounted on the camera though. I would love to go tonight and expose some film to the stars, but I haven't seen but a small star here and there for over a week now, we have had 70-90% cloud cover and scattered storms for over a week when the storms clear though...

The shorter the lens, the more film plane issues come into play. Real astro addicts obsess about plane accuracy, and sometimes even add vac backs to MF SLR's.
Just getting a fun shot or two is different.

I'm not THAT dedicated. I have a Graphmatic that I will use as it holds the film more firmly and flatter then a normal holder. If I really get serious I'll modify a holder to have a vaccum to the film, wouldn't be all that hard really. Right now I just want to play with it though and see what I get.

Thank you all... And not one image shared yet either