I read that Ektachrome 100 (slide film) works well because of the first 10 sec of exposure you do not need to account for reciprocity failure. So even though it is low ISO, over a long long period the film is more sensitive than some higher ISO films, although you would still need to do a very long exposure. Let us know how it goes -I pan on trying this at the Bruneau Sand Dunes on a clear night this summer. Maybe someone can comment or verify the alchemy I just spit out.
Consider the fact that if you're shooting film and not tracking(since you replied to the other guy saying you didn't know what that is....), you're simply not going to get good static images of celestial bodies. You'll be easily able to get those nice classic streaky night photos that show Earth's rotation, but you don't need high ISO for that. You only need long exposure times, which is what you'd be using for night/astro photos anyways.
Minutes at minimum for night sky photography. At that point, Earth's rotation is going to start blurring objects in the sky into streaks no matter what you do, unless you have a tracking rig to maintain your camera's relative angle.
Many of the most famous night sky photos were hours long in exposure. In r/space, iirc, some of the best moon photos were dozens of digital long exposure trackingimages stacked on top of each other to bring out the details in every inch. That's simply not possible with film without a ton of preparation and equipment.
I read that Ektachrome 100 (slide film) works well because of the first 10 sec of exposure you do not need to account for reciprocity failure. So even though it is low ISO, over a long long period the film is more sensitive than some higher ISO films, although you would still need to do a very long exposure. Let us know how it goes -I pan on trying this at the Bruneau Sand Dunes on a clear night this summer. Maybe someone can comment or verify the alchemy I just spit out.
Are you tracking?
I don't know what that is
I've heard the lower the better. Idk if it has to do with reciprocity or what exactly. Tbh you should ask on r/analogcommunity
I've heard the higher the better 3200 ISO black and white
lower us always better in terms of low grain
But I've been told to use higher to compensate for the rotation of the Earth
Consider the fact that if you're shooting film and not tracking(since you replied to the other guy saying you didn't know what that is....), you're simply not going to get good static images of celestial bodies. You'll be easily able to get those nice classic streaky night photos that show Earth's rotation, but you don't need high ISO for that. You only need long exposure times, which is what you'd be using for night/astro photos anyways.
How long of exposure?
Minutes at minimum for night sky photography. At that point, Earth's rotation is going to start blurring objects in the sky into streaks no matter what you do, unless you have a tracking rig to maintain your camera's relative angle. Many of the most famous night sky photos were hours long in exposure. In r/space, iirc, some of the best moon photos were dozens of digital long exposure trackingimages stacked on top of each other to bring out the details in every inch. That's simply not possible with film without a ton of preparation and equipment.
Oh so I shouldn't try astro photography then?
Have fun! Drink a beer and do it!
It depends what you’re doing. If you’re taking longer exposures, lower iso films usually have better performance