Photographing the Comet

[gmrobinson@mmm.com]

I used an R8 and an 800mm and it still looked like I was 8000 mm short of what
is needed to produce a worthwhile photograph! 

And after all the fuss about this comet thing and what I see on film from
an 800mm, I really can't get excited about it other than, "gee whiz there
is that thing they are talking about!"  Just maybe I'm becoming cynical in
my old age.<<

ted
Victoria, Canada

The comet is best photographed with a 50 to 80mm lens wide open under an
extremely dark sky.  Long exposures with fairly fast color films will
reveal the faint colors, wisps, and tentacles of the tail that extends for
thousands and thousands of miles (actually millions).   With an 800mm lens
you get a shot of
the coma but the real beauty is in the off gas surrounding and trailing the
coma.  The tail can be so faint at its farthest reach from the coma that it
cannot be really appreciated without wide long exposures.

Happy hunting, Don

Don is right.  I photographed the comet several times before I realized the
head and the full length of the tail cannot be optimally recorded together
because of the contrast limitations of photographic film.  Since I consider
the tail the more desirable part of the image of the comet, I aimed to
maximize its size.  Only then was I satisfied with my work.  It is tough to
compete with Kitt Peak or the Hubble Space Telescope with an 800 mm lens,
but a 90 mm lens does a beautiful job of capturing the tail.

Glen Robinson