Posted by Brad Kargus on March 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Hi Everyone,
I'm interested in doing some film shooting for my long exposure landscape stuff in the twilight hours. This could be up to 0.5 - 1 hour before sunrise or after sunset. It is my understanding that I need to be aware of reciprocity failure and the need for colour correction. The film would likely be Provia 100F but I'd be totally open to using something possibly more appropriate (?)
My questions are regarding colour correcting filters:
1) Am I correct in my understanding that I need to colour correct, if I'm interested in reasonable colour accuracy?
2) If I need to colour correct, is it warming filters that I should be looking at?
3) If warming filters, which strength(s) would serve me best? I think the range goes from 81A to 81EF.
You'll probably get mixed responses on this question. It really boils down to whether or not you view the resultant transparency as the "end product". If you do subscribe to this view, you'll definitely need use a warming filter on occasion. Provia 100f (a very nice film IMO) tends to be blue-biased, and most shots will benefit from an 81A filter. Some will require an 81B depending on the lighting.
Here's the kicker though - If you're digitally processing the images as scans (probably you are), all of your color correction can be done at that time. Some folks will probably claim that they get better results from using a filter in the first place, but in my experience, this isn't the case. With my 4x5 scans, I believe I have significantly better control doing the color correction in post, since I can then selectively apply the warming to specific tones, portions of the image, etc. It's simply a more flexible means of accomplishing the same thing, without the hassle and cost. Ultimately, I view the transparency as a source of raw information that needs to be interpreted - and trust me, scans tend to need quite a bit of work regardless of how "close" you get it in the field! Anyhow, that's my $0.02 - your milage may vary. Best of luck!
Brad, I could not have said it better then what Joel has stated here. I have shot Astia, Provia, Velvia 50, 100, 100F. They all have their own ideas of what color should look like, in tones, fidelity, casts, and texture. I like the Provia for the speed, but have shot primarily Velvia 50 over the years. All of the mentioned react to direct light and shades differently too. Some lean toward blue casts as Joel had mentioned, some go off the map with magenta casts. To me no matter what I shoot it is all in the scans and post processing to get things to "appear" correct, whatever that means in our photographic world as we all know it.
You might want to hop over to the Fujifilm site and look up the reciprocity characteristics of Provia-100f. Not only will you need to add color compensating filters, you'll also need to increase your exposure time. Also, if you push this film, you'll need have your lab 'push process' it for you.
-Preston
Posted by Brad Kargus on March 18, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Hey Joel and Paul, thank you for the replies!
Joel, your assumption is correct. I would be processing scanned images in Photoshop - sorry I forgot to mention that. It's interesting that you say all the colour correction can be done at the digital processing stage. My thinking was that there wouldn't be near as much latitude as there was, for say, adjusting white balance in the RAW editor but obviously you feel there is enough.
Joel, if I may ask, have you worked with scans of exposures on the order of a half-hour?
I use this as an example because, so far with digital, I've found that a half-hour exposure beginning at about a half-hour after sunset seems to be what is typically required for my usual camera settings and filter set-up.
Paul, I singled out Provia over Velvia because it is my understanding that it is better at handling reciprocity failure. However, I'd like to give Astia a try, as well.
I also forgot to mention that this is for shooting landscapes.
Posted by Brad Kargus on March 18, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Thanks Preston,
I've gone to the Fujifilm site and downloaded the PDF for Provia 100F. The sheet is much more detailed than I thought it would be. I see there is an example for a 4 minute exposure - colour compensating filter = 2.5G and exposure + 1/3 stop.
I'm lucky that there are a couple places here in Calgary that do E-6 processing so I can communicate with them in person and get the results more quickly. I'll have to ask them about push processing.
Brad - Nope, I haven't ventured out into the half-hour range for some time. Usually 10-15 min is where I draw the line. Partially this is due to shooting large format where I'm forced to work with very small apertures (f22-f32) in order to get my desired depth of field. I can say, that even in the 10-15 min range, the transparencies tend to be very blue. Within this time range, color correction hasn't been problematic what so ever. I would imagine that the light would inherently be quite blue if a half hour (or longer) exposure was required. As such, it may look fairly natural to leave some degree of blue cast on the image. Sounds like a fun venture!
Brad, the longest exposure I have done with Velvia 50 was 8 minutes. It was an early 4x5 shot years back now. To be honest, it looks darn good for color right off the transparency as it is.
Posted by Brad Kargus on March 18, 2009 at 11:11 PM
It sounds like this is worth experimenting with first before incurring the cost of warming filters. Reduced variables. I find just nailing the exposure for these longer times can be quite a challenge, especially once the metering can no longer help. It took three attempts before I got in the ballpark of the right exposure time when starting a half-hour after sunset. Even with the metering, it's fun estimating how much time to add to the reading to compensate for the rapidly decreasing light. I have yet to try the 'before sunrise' version of this!
Yeah, there's definitely a lot of experimentation involved in doing very long exposures. Light levels change enormously over the course of the exposure time, making metering very difficult. I suppose paying $5 a shot doesn't exactly encourage jumping head first into such things.
Anyhow, I hope things work out and that you post some of your results at some point - it'd be fun to see what you come up with.
Posted by Brad Kargus on March 19, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Thanks Joel,
This will be on 35mm, to start, and I'll see where it goes from there. Probably not too exciting for a LF shooter. However, I expect even the small format to look more and more favourable against the digital as exposure time increases.
Brad, I wouldn't worry about filters or reciprocity. When talking about 30+ minute exposures you'll be way past the reciprocity point for any film anyway. Color correction needed will depend on the ambient color temperature and chemistry of the film and as the others mentioned - may take some trial and error.
On a moonless night you can safely keep the shutter open for hours without worrying about overexposure (unless there's other sources of illumination like distant city lights).
With a bright moon in the sky, a 15-20 minute exposure at f/8 or larger will generally give you an almost daylight looking image, with eerie star trails.
Guy
Posted by Brad Kargus on March 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Thanks Guy!
When it comes to photography, I like the trial and error process of learning. It's good to have a notion of what equipment and settings will work but I find trial an error can greatly improve understanding about the broader range of possible outcomes. It can also facilitate the discovery of boundary conditions allowing for ideas about how those boundaries may be pushed.
Discussion
12 repliesI'm interested in doing some film shooting for my long exposure landscape stuff in the twilight hours. This could be up to 0.5 - 1 hour before sunrise or after sunset. It is my understanding that I need to be aware of reciprocity failure and the need for colour correction. The film would likely be Provia 100F but I'd be totally open to using something possibly more appropriate (?)
My questions are regarding colour correcting filters:
1) Am I correct in my understanding that I need to colour correct, if I'm interested in reasonable colour accuracy?
2) If I need to colour correct, is it warming filters that I should be looking at?
3) If warming filters, which strength(s) would serve me best? I think the range goes from 81A to 81EF.
Please let me know!
Thank you,
Brad
You'll probably get mixed responses on this question. It really boils down to whether or not you view the resultant transparency as the "end product". If you do subscribe to this view, you'll definitely need use a warming filter on occasion. Provia 100f (a very nice film IMO) tends to be blue-biased, and most shots will benefit from an 81A filter. Some will require an 81B depending on the lighting.
Here's the kicker though - If you're digitally processing the images as scans (probably you are), all of your color correction can be done at that time. Some folks will probably claim that they get better results from using a filter in the first place, but in my experience, this isn't the case. With my 4x5 scans, I believe I have significantly better control doing the color correction in post, since I can then selectively apply the warming to specific tones, portions of the image, etc. It's simply a more flexible means of accomplishing the same thing, without the hassle and cost. Ultimately, I view the transparency as a source of raw information that needs to be interpreted - and trust me, scans tend to need quite a bit of work regardless of how "close" you get it in the field! Anyhow, that's my $0.02 - your milage may vary. Best of luck!
You might want to hop over to the Fujifilm site and look up the reciprocity characteristics of Provia-100f. Not only will you need to add color compensating filters, you'll also need to increase your exposure time. Also, if you push this film, you'll need have your lab 'push process' it for you.
-Preston
Joel, your assumption is correct. I would be processing scanned images in Photoshop - sorry I forgot to mention that. It's interesting that you say all the colour correction can be done at the digital processing stage. My thinking was that there wouldn't be near as much latitude as there was, for say, adjusting white balance in the RAW editor but obviously you feel there is enough.
Joel, if I may ask, have you worked with scans of exposures on the order of a half-hour?
I use this as an example because, so far with digital, I've found that a half-hour exposure beginning at about a half-hour after sunset seems to be what is typically required for my usual camera settings and filter set-up.
Paul, I singled out Provia over Velvia because it is my understanding that it is better at handling reciprocity failure. However, I'd like to give Astia a try, as well.
I also forgot to mention that this is for shooting landscapes.
I've gone to the Fujifilm site and downloaded the PDF for Provia 100F. The sheet is much more detailed than I thought it would be. I see there is an example for a 4 minute exposure - colour compensating filter = 2.5G and exposure + 1/3 stop.
I'm lucky that there are a couple places here in Calgary that do E-6 processing so I can communicate with them in person and get the results more quickly. I'll have to ask them about push processing.
Thanks again!
Anyhow, I hope things work out and that you post some of your results at some point - it'd be fun to see what you come up with.
This will be on 35mm, to start, and I'll see where it goes from there. Probably not too exciting for a LF shooter. However, I expect even the small format to look more and more favourable against the digital as exposure time increases.
On a moonless night you can safely keep the shutter open for hours without worrying about overexposure (unless there's other sources of illumination like distant city lights).
Here's an example of a 5-hour exposure on Velvia 100F at f/5.6.
With a bright moon in the sky, a 15-20 minute exposure at f/8 or larger will generally give you an almost daylight looking image, with eerie star trails.
Guy
When it comes to photography, I like the trial and error process of learning. It's good to have a notion of what equipment and settings will work but I find trial an error can greatly improve understanding about the broader range of possible outcomes. It can also facilitate the discovery of boundary conditions allowing for ideas about how those boundaries may be pushed.
Great photo in the link!
Thanks,
Brad