Evening all,
I've been shooting long exposure, night shots on film for a few years now but recently I've been shooting in more challenging lighting conditions and getting mixed results. I've been using an app called 'Available Light' for a while now, which for my urban stuff appears to really help and is accurate to the results I was expecting.
However, I've been shooting some structures at night that don't really have any ambient light hitting them and I'm pretty much reliant on the moonlight / stars to illuminate the subjects. Things like a dam in the wilderness, or transmission tower up on a moorland.
For anyone not familiar with the 'Available Light' app it's a bit like a digital Jiffy Exposure Calculator. It has set descriptions of scenes (including image references), ISO ranges, f-stop and then it dictates your exposure. From there I go into another app to calculate my reciprocity. I believe I'm hitting lighting conditions of -4 or -5 EV, so quite dark but I'm wondering if my calculations are off, hey it's all speculation as I can't really meter this!
For example, I shot a transmission tower on a moorland with the following settings...
Portra 400 (developed at box speed in my local lab)
Using the available light app I chose the lowest reference (landscape lit by starlight only) which was accurate I think for the evening I was shooting. The tower wasn't lit by any ambient light and there was very little light around. I shot it at around midnight UK time, a month or so ago, so it was dark but clear and there were stars out. It was bright enough for me to see my hand in front of me and the silhouette of the structure against the sky.
f.5.6 gave me an 8min exposure at - 4 EV or 0.0390625 lux according to available light app
I calculated my reciprocity at to 1 hr 03 mins 34 secs according to reciprocity app and I was diligent in shooting that time
Shot on RZ67 pro2 110mm lens
However on checking my negative after the lab exposed, it's underexposed for what I was intending, by a lot in my opinion. Everything apart from the sky is in shadow. I've very little detail in the structure or grass around. I know there was little light but I was expecting to get something considering the exposure time and the cumulative effect on the film from the sky.
Now I'm aware that I'm playing a bit of a guessing game with these apps and that I'm trusting someone else's calculations as opposed to doing mine but it's quite a way off in my opinion. I also appreciate that I'm working in darkness without any light on my subject (or little visible light) but I'd like to get some sort of trust in a process and more than anything, stop wasting film! Can anyone tell me where I'm going wrong? Have I just expected too much considering the conditions. In these environments do I just need to expose for way longer? Is the app inaccurate? Have I just judged the lighting wrong?
Does anyone have any experience with this app, or perhaps using other similar techniques? Going on the tools I had available to me I can't really see that I made any wrong choices but perhaps I'm being naive??!
Thanks and sorry for the long post!
I've been shooting long exposure, night shots on film for a few years now but recently I've been shooting in more challenging lighting conditions and getting mixed results. I've been using an app called 'Available Light' for a while now, which for my urban stuff appears to really help and is accurate to the results I was expecting.
However, I've been shooting some structures at night that don't really have any ambient light hitting them and I'm pretty much reliant on the moonlight / stars to illuminate the subjects. Things like a dam in the wilderness, or transmission tower up on a moorland.
For anyone not familiar with the 'Available Light' app it's a bit like a digital Jiffy Exposure Calculator. It has set descriptions of scenes (including image references), ISO ranges, f-stop and then it dictates your exposure. From there I go into another app to calculate my reciprocity. I believe I'm hitting lighting conditions of -4 or -5 EV, so quite dark but I'm wondering if my calculations are off, hey it's all speculation as I can't really meter this!
For example, I shot a transmission tower on a moorland with the following settings...
Portra 400 (developed at box speed in my local lab)
Using the available light app I chose the lowest reference (landscape lit by starlight only) which was accurate I think for the evening I was shooting. The tower wasn't lit by any ambient light and there was very little light around. I shot it at around midnight UK time, a month or so ago, so it was dark but clear and there were stars out. It was bright enough for me to see my hand in front of me and the silhouette of the structure against the sky.
f.5.6 gave me an 8min exposure at - 4 EV or 0.0390625 lux according to available light app
I calculated my reciprocity at to 1 hr 03 mins 34 secs according to reciprocity app and I was diligent in shooting that time
Shot on RZ67 pro2 110mm lens
However on checking my negative after the lab exposed, it's underexposed for what I was intending, by a lot in my opinion. Everything apart from the sky is in shadow. I've very little detail in the structure or grass around. I know there was little light but I was expecting to get something considering the exposure time and the cumulative effect on the film from the sky.
Now I'm aware that I'm playing a bit of a guessing game with these apps and that I'm trusting someone else's calculations as opposed to doing mine but it's quite a way off in my opinion. I also appreciate that I'm working in darkness without any light on my subject (or little visible light) but I'd like to get some sort of trust in a process and more than anything, stop wasting film! Can anyone tell me where I'm going wrong? Have I just expected too much considering the conditions. In these environments do I just need to expose for way longer? Is the app inaccurate? Have I just judged the lighting wrong?
Does anyone have any experience with this app, or perhaps using other similar techniques? Going on the tools I had available to me I can't really see that I made any wrong choices but perhaps I'm being naive??!
Thanks and sorry for the long post!
