My understanding is this:
- quicker to collect and store information
- photographic film takes time to be developed
- the results can be more easily digitised, providing more convenient analysis
- photographic plates only detect certain wavelengths, whereas photoelectric technologies e.g. CCDs can be made to detect a broader range of wavelengths
- photographic plates are large and fragile, making them impractical to use in orbital telescopes
- There isn't a linear relationship between the size of a dot produced on a photographic plate and the brightness of the star that caused this dot. Thus, calibrating and analysing photographic plates is more difficult than with photoelectric technology.
- CCDs are more sensitive
Anything anyone else could add to it?
- quicker to collect and store information
- photographic film takes time to be developed
- the results can be more easily digitised, providing more convenient analysis
- photographic plates only detect certain wavelengths, whereas photoelectric technologies e.g. CCDs can be made to detect a broader range of wavelengths
- photographic plates are large and fragile, making them impractical to use in orbital telescopes
- There isn't a linear relationship between the size of a dot produced on a photographic plate and the brightness of the star that caused this dot. Thus, calibrating and analysing photographic plates is more difficult than with photoelectric technology.
- CCDs are more sensitive
Anything anyone else could add to it?