hehe I guess I have to thank the superior education system in Europe for my knowledge in science I think we learned about those kind of stuff already in grade 9 or 10

Yeah, I think I must have learned about that in year 9, so when I was 13. Probably had it mentioned before then, but that's the age we started doing basic astrophysics.

I don't use film. No photographer I know uses film, and I have no need or want to use film.



This photo is real, and I could care less if you don't agree.
It takes time for a light to travel from stars to the earths surface.
Stars are always out, but you can't see them.

At night, you need to use longer shutter speeds to get photos of stars because it is so dark out, and the stars
being the only light source and prove to be a problem.
That's why you need long shutter speeds to compensate for higher F stops.



This post was edited by TheBlackRose66 on Jan 14 2009 09:58am

Why would you need to be shooting higher fstops, it's not as if depth of field is an issue, you're not going to want to be focused on anything other than the moon anyway if you're just shooting the sky.

I imagine you don't know a great deal of professional ones then, I can quite honestly tell you than every single current professional photographer has shot film and understands the pros and cons of using it when compared to digital.
Wether or not they choose to use it depends on a huge amount of factors.

you get glare off the moon and it looks like the sun. thats why you squint in bright light

Guess it'd depend how bright the moon is when you're shooting, shouldn't be too much of an issue at certain times of the cycle, although I do see your point, I've never tried to shoot the sky at night so I could be wrong.

it must have been bright on this occasion because when the moon is dark there is lots of cloud, but we can clearly see stars thus proving there was no cloud so the moon should have been bright.

You're right. Although it'd be interesting to see how the photo looks when taken at different fstops.

The lower the Fstop the darker the moon looks, and then you can't get the details in the moon like the craters etc.


And, It might be because I live in the biggest populated, most expensive city in Canada that nobody uses film.
And to add to the fact film is a bit more of a pain to get processed,you can't really edit film with Photoshop, and dark room chemicals are terrible for then environment and for people.

The thing is a photo shouldn't need to be edited if it's been taken well, and yes, you can edit film in photoshop by just using a negative/transparency scanner, hell a bunch of a tools in PS are just digital means of doing stuff one can do in the dark room, ie dodging and burning in.

Film is hardly a pain to process, it just takes a bit of time and knowledge.

I think you're being naive if you don't think anyone in your city uses film, go check out local photography shops, if any of them stock film, or offer film processing services, it's because people use it.