Dear Friends, I have two questions for the group, which I hope someone can help me with. 1. On the subject of film for long exposures, what's your feelings about 400 vs. 800 films? I heard that you don't really reduce the exposure time with 800. If that is so I'd be better off using 400 as I assume it's not as grainy. True or false? 2. I'm especially interested in M31. Does the darker sky at the Wedge pose any real advantage for photography over results I would get at the gravel pit? I shot two Andromeda photos a while ago at the gravel pit. Overall they weren't as good as I would like because I did not expose one of them long enough and the wind kicked up and caused a sort of double-exposure effect on the other and it also could have used a longer exposure. Still, I was surprised how good the contrast is, with fine gradiations, bright center, dark outer reaches. These results make me wonder if there's anything to be gained by driving to a darker site for photos of something like a relatively bright galaxy, star cluster or nebula. If anyone has opinions about these queries, I would very much like to get them. Thanks, Joe