"Glow" in low-light black and white photography

[M Carter]

All I see is flare from bright light sources in a low light setting, and lens flare from pinpoint sources (those circular shapes with starbursts in them). It's all exacerbated by motion blur. Kind of looks like the motion was fore/aft vs. left/right - there's almost a "zoomed" look to the screens on the sides.

I don't see a "lens that got wet because it was cold" or a dirty lens (in my experience, a dusty lens or filter gets flares from actual bits of dust, usually apparent on wider glass). The diffuse look from the hanging lamp could be from a hazy or smudged lens, but in these conditions and film, etc., I'd expect some highlights to bloom out like that.

 

[speywalker]

The effect from of the glow in the base entry image can be created by over developing the film then taking the image from the scanned negative and applying max contrast.

 

[markbarendt]

The effect from of the glow in the base entry image can be created by over developing the film then taking the image from the scanned negative and applying max contrast.

No.

Simple contrast adjustments regardless of medium normally only enhance something that's already there in the negative. What you describe speywalker simply makes what is already there in the negative more visible in print or positive.

The way flare effects the negative is that stray light from the bright areas of the scene 'bleed' into dark areas. It is most visible where the contrast is high (black and white subject matter adjacent to each other). Flare is a normal part of all camera systems. IME it rears it's head most often when films receive less than "box" exposure, say Tri-X at 1600 or 3200 and the print/positive includes shadows printed from the toe of the film. Flare effects the low tones more noticeably than high tones.

 

[Jebedeo]

All I see is flare from bright light sources in a low light setting, and lens flare from pinpoint sources (those circular shapes with starbursts in them). It's all exacerbated by motion blur. Kind of looks like the motion was fore/aft vs. left/right - there's almost a "zoomed" look to the screens on the sides.

I don't see a "lens that got wet because it was cold" or a dirty lens (in my experience, a dusty lens or filter gets flares from actual bits of dust, usually apparent on wider glass). The diffuse look from the hanging lamp could be from a hazy or smudged lens, but in these conditions and film, etc., I'd expect some highlights to bloom out like that.

This is a good point, however I was shooting at 1/60 (if I remember correctly). Also, I can't explain why the motion blur would only be evident on the bright spots and not on the people's faces, and why it is symmetrical.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Not to mention that: 1. It looks nothing like motion blur and 2. The 'glow' radiates from the center outward.

It's either moisture fog or internal fog on/in the lens.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Straight pic...

Motion blur...

Lens fogged with breath...

 

[Truzi]

Old-N-Feeble - excellent example.

 

[markbarendt]

I can't explain why the motion blur would only be evident on the bright spots

It wouldn't, it's all or nothing.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Old-N-Feeble - excellent example.

Thank you, Truzi. There's nothing like entering into the realm of the 'real'.