How come Michael Kenna's nighttime shots always look so bright?

ted_smith · Dec 29, 2012

Vaughn...that rocks! Thanks a lot. That is what I was after pretty much, when I asked the question here. It certainly helps explain a lot of my mis-understandings!

I do have a question about it. Where it says, for example, meter reading of 20 minutes = 4 hours....I don't get that. If the meter says 20 minutes for a "correct exposure", 4 hours is making it considerably "over exposed". Is that the point, though? Is that how his pictures look the way they do and so bright despite apparant darkness? In other words, a piece of technology might report 20 minutes as a suitable exposure time, but he's taking it to 4 hours? Or have I mis-understood that?

As for the roll of 120 I shot at 10\15 secs in almot utter darkness...by the sounds of it, I think I may as well just throw that out rather than paying to have it dev'd!

StoneNYC · Dec 29, 2012

ted_smith said:
Vaughn...that rocks! Thanks a lot. That is what I was after pretty much, when I asked the question here. It certainly helps explain a lot of my mis-understandings!

I do have a question about it. Where it says, for example, meter reading of 20 minutes = 4 hours....I don't get that. If the meter says 20 minutes for a "correct exposure", 4 hours is making it considerably "over exposed". Is that the point, though? Is that how his pictures look the way they do and so bright despite apparant darkness? In other words, a piece of technology might report 20 minutes as a suitable exposure time, but he's taking it to 4 hours? Or have I mis-understood that?

As for the roll of 120 I shot at 10\15 secs in almot utter darkness...by the sounds of it, I think I may as well just throw that out rather than paying to have it dev'd!

2 things, one is with this stuff it's better to learn to develop it yourself. Not have a lab do it, because there are finite details about WHICH developer works best with which film and the type of exposure you're doing you will want to have more control over the process in general. It's easy for $100 to get a full Paterson setup that can be put in a box when not in use and won't take up much space and you can do this at home.

Second is, the reason for the 20 minutes = 4 hours is about reciprocity failure, so most films hit failure at 30 seconds, Fuji Neopan Acros 100 has a reported 2 minute failure threshold. So basically after 2 minutes (or 30 seconds for most other films) the normal exposure times stop being accurate and have to be extended exponentially. The film basically stops reacting to the light and needs to be exposed for a much longer time. This also means steadier tripod and camera that can be out on time function (bulb would be ok but you would be standing there holding the cable for an hour...). Does this make sense?

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

RalphLambrecht · Dec 29, 2012

i agree, iused bond's table with much success too!

bobwysiwyg · Dec 29, 2012

(bulb would be ok but you would be standing there holding the cable for an hour...)

Many cables have locking capability.

StoneNYC · Dec 29, 2012

bobwysiwyg said:
Many cables have locking capability.

Yea I know but sometimes they give out slowly and you don't know / realize over a 2 hour period. Also in snow/cold they are hard to turn tight. Just personal preference....

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

DWThomas · Dec 29, 2012

Reciprocity failure comes up all the time in daylight when shooting with pinholes. The problem is that doubling the exposure time no longer results in doubling the effective exposure, so additional time is needed. Compounding that over a number of attempted doublings can lead to large increases. The program Pinhole Designer can output a small table in Excel format that can include compensation for reciprocity with a number of popular films. The results are quite sobering. The table is indexed by the shutter speed measured for f/22. That value is multiplied by a factor related to the pinhole aperture relative to f/22, a factor that can be well over 100, and then compensated for reciprocity. With a typical pinhole, a reading of 1/4 second can call for a four minute exposure! And a few stops beyond that, it starts calling for hours.

It can turn out that some films like Acros 100 with lesser reciprocity failure can effectively be faster than 400TX at long exposures.

Vaughn · Dec 30, 2012

StoneNYC said:
...Second is, the reason for the 20 minutes = 4 hours is about reciprocity failure, so most films hit failure at 30 seconds, Fuji Neopan Acros 100 has a reported 2 minute failure threshold. So basically after 2 minutes (or 30 seconds for most other films) the normal exposure times stop being accurate and have to be extended exponentially. The film basically stops reacting to the light and needs to be exposed for a much longer time. This also means steadier tripod and camera that can be out on time function (bulb would be ok but you would be standing there holding the cable for an hour...). Does this make sense?...

Almost all films hit problems at 1 seconds...ACROS a little later. In low light/long exposures there is so little light hitting the shadow areas of the film, that there is not enough energy to cause the same rate of change in the silver salts as there are in the mid-tones and high lights. In a normal exposure, there is hundreds the times of light hitting a highlight area than a shadow area...and the shadows and highlights react to the light in a normal proportional manner. In a low light situation, the silver salts of the shadows lag in their reaction to the low light, while the midtones and highlights have enough exposure that they still are exposing in the normal manner. Thus one needs to give more exposure for the shadows, and reduce development to hold back the highlights.

ted_smith · Dec 31, 2012

All very informative, this. Thanks guys. I had a basic understanding of RF before this but now much better.

My longest exposure was 25 seconds, if I recall, using Fuji Velvia (attached) to photograph a St Ives cobbled street. So I'm not used to thinking beyond that.

As for home development....an interesting point. I actually have an enlarger (Ilford 400HS multigrade head) with a fantastic Apo Rodenstock lens. I have some dev tanks, red lights, etc etc and have, in the past, produced some prints with it and I really enjoyed it....the only problem is somewhere to do it now, since our kids came along and occupied the room I used to do it in! In addition, I don't have a room that I can sufficiently darken (I have tried in one room but it was always a major hassle to get it dark enough) and, in the past, despite practising, I screwed up quite a few rolls of film with photos I had hoped were going to be good. Based on my failures, I thought "Oh well....I'll just send to the lab - it's easier and at least I won't screw up my films" and then any "keepers" from the proof sets I'll send off back to the lab to be hand printed.

I know the next suggestion will be to buy one of those little tents to do the film tank loading etc, but I still need somewhere to do the printing. And then there's the frequency...developer goes off once opened of course, after a few months (if kept in an airtight thing). I don't do enough photography, really, to use up the liquids I buy in time before they go off. 8 months ago I poured 5 litres of developer away that had gone brown and manky 6 months beyond it's use by.

Bill Burk · Dec 31, 2012

ted_smith said:
As for home development....an interesting point. I actually have an enlarger (Ilford 400HS multigrade head) with a fantastic Apo Rodenstock lens. I have some dev tanks, red lights, etc etc and have, in the past, produced some prints with it and I really enjoyed it....the only problem is somewhere to do it now, since our kids came along and occupied the room I used to do it in! In addition, I don't have a room that I can sufficiently darken (I have tried in one room but it was always a major hassle to get it dark enough) and, in the past, despite practising, I screwed up quite a few rolls of film with photos I had hoped were going to be good. Based on my failures, I thought "Oh well....I'll just send to the lab - it's easier and at least I won't screw up my films" and then any "keepers" from the proof sets I'll send off back to the lab to be hand printed.

I know the next suggestion will be to buy one of those little tents to do the film tank loading etc, but I still need somewhere to do the printing. And then there's the frequency...developer goes off once opened of course, after a few months (if kept in an airtight thing). I don't do enough photography, really, to use up the liquids I buy in time before they go off. 8 months ago I poured 5 litres of developer away that had gone brown and manky 6 months beyond it's use by.

ted_smith...

Start a new thread. I can give you encouraging news! And I am sure there are many other voices who can join in to tell how to run a makeshift darkroom.

You can load film onto reels and put in tanks in a "changing bag", you don't "need" a full-on tent.

All the bedrooms in my home are occupied. So my current darkroom is in the garage. Don't know if you have one. Dusty as it is, it works. I've had darkrooms in the closet under the stairs. The back bathroom of dad's apartment. The basement of an ancient house. Once built a stunning darkroom with a huge ventilation fan in the corner of a bedroom with one bed set along outside the tray wall and the other bed set along the Byzantine light trap.

The one-gallon batches of Dektol decant nicely into four "quart" plastic bottles. In my experience, the sealed bottles last far, far past the manufacturer's recommendation. A quart is good enough for a "session".

You only need to work at night in most cases, when you can't darken the room enough. The proper safelight is a dull amber (not red). You might start out with small packs of paper (10-sheets) in case you fear your darkroom isn't dark enough... you won't ruin a fortune.

StoneNYC · Dec 31, 2012

What bill said... Plus RF is usually use for Range Finder which is a type of camera so I would type out reciprocity failure as to not confuse folks.

Good luck!

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

MattKing · Dec 31, 2012

And for clarity, I find it really important to understand one thing about reciprocity failure.

Although we often speak about the effect in terms of exposure times, the sort of low light corrections we are talking about here are not caused by the long exposures - they are caused by the extremely low light levels.

cliveh · Dec 31, 2012

If you wish to try and emulate Michael Kenna's night shots, also note how he often anchors his composition with say a bridge, the sea or a cooling tower and how he also makes use of artificial light combined with starlight. On a starlit night it often looks very black, but with several hours of exposure, things we cant see begin to register.

Bill Burk · Dec 31, 2012

MattKing said:
And for clarity, I find it really important to understand one thing about reciprocity failure.

Although we often speak about the effect in terms of exposure times, the sort of low light corrections we are talking about here are not caused by the long exposures - they are caused by the extremely low light levels.

I don't doubt your correctness but can't get my head around your statement... Don't know how you can have one without the other (unless for instance you are saying there isn't a significant difference between an intentional 10 stops overexposed 2 minutes exposure compared to a 10 stops overexposed but 1/10th second shot)...

Vaughn · Dec 31, 2012

Six of one thing, half-dozen of another, and three pairs of something else!

It is not the level of light -- it is how much light we allow to hit the film. Thus reciprocity also fails on very short exposures.

MattKing · Jan 1, 2013

Bill Burk said:
I don't doubt your correctness but can't get my head around your statement... Don't know how you can have one without the other (unless for instance you are saying there isn't a significant difference between an intentional 10 stops overexposed 2 minutes exposure compared to a 10 stops overexposed but 1/10th second shot)...

The reason I like to point this out because I think it helps people understand why things happen, and also opens people to considering another way of solving the problem.

For low light reciprocity failure, there isn't something magical about a long exposure that somehow affects the film in a mysterious way. What happens is that the light hitting the film has so little energy/intensity that the film doesn't respond as strongly to it - there is a threshold light intensity at the film plane. Below that threshold, the film responds much less to light than would otherwise be predicted from extrapolating the straight line portion of the film's curve. So with light at the film plane at these low levels, exposing the film, for example, for twice as long gives you a result that is actually twice a lesser result than what one would otherwise expect.

The benefit of understanding this is that it encourages people to consider another solution - increasing the intensity of the light reaching the film.

As Vaughn says, a similar thing happens with very high intensity light that would otherwise necessitate very short exposures - the response isn't linear there either.

Although as I understand it there are additional effects one must take into account for very, very short exposures - my memory of the physics involved is a bit hazy though.

Brian C. Miller · Jan 1, 2013

MattKing said:
For low light reciprocity failure, there isn't something magical about a long exposure that somehow affects the film in a mysterious way. What happens is that the light hitting the film has so little energy/intensity that the film doesn't respond as strongly to it - there is a threshold light intensity at the film plane. Below that threshold, the film responds much less to light than would otherwise be predicted from extrapolating the straight line portion of the film's curve. So with light at the film plane at these low levels, exposing the film, for example, for twice as long gives you a result that is actually twice a lesser result than what one would otherwise expect.

I came up with this analogy: Imagine that film is like a bucket, and light is like water. Normally, when you click the shutter, the right amount of water flows into the bucket. When the light is low, the water trickles or drips into the bucket, and its rate is so slow that some of that water evaporates out. So to get to the proper "full" mark, it takes more time to fill the bucket.

(And for making photographs like Michael Kenna, scene selection is important. One time I photographed a landscape by moonlight, and Kodak E100S looked like daylight after 15 minute exposure at f/2.8. I'm sure Mr. Kenna made lots of test exposures to get the appropriate reciprocity data for his needs.)

jvo · Jan 2, 2013

do a you tube search for michael kenna....

jvo

Dan Williams · Jan 2, 2013

The Tacoma Art Museum is showing a two part retrospective of Kenna's work. I have seen the first half - about 100 prints, and will be going to the second half when it is hung. The first show ends this week, Jan 6th. The second half opens Jan 11th and runs through March 24th. If you are interested in Michael's work and are able to get there, you will not be disappointed. Kenna will also be giving a lecture and book signing at the museum on Jan 12th.

Dan

Vaughn · Jan 2, 2013

I visited friends right before the New Year and looked at the few Michael Kenna's they have on their walls. No matter what advice, charts, etc one looks at, the skill and eye of Micheal Kenna will only be approximated by much thought and experience.

StoneNYC · Jan 2, 2013

Vaughn said:
I visited friends right before the New Year and looked at the few Michael Kenna's they have on their walls. No matter what advice, charts, etc one looks at, the skill and eye of Micheal Kenna will only be approximated by much thought and experience.

I would say, "why aren't my images on the wall?"

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Vaughn · Jan 2, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I would say, "why aren't my images on the wall?"

One is...and in the company of many other fine photographers. I am honored that I have one up on the walls!

StoneNYC · Jan 2, 2013

Vaughn said:
One is...and in the company of many other fine photographers. I am honored that I have one up on the walls!

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Vaughn · Jan 2, 2013

Both friends are master photographers, master teachers, and incredible people. Most of the work has been given to them or in trade for their own work. Ruth Bernard to John Wimberley, Jerry U. to Linda Conner, etc etc! Truly amazing.

I was mentioning this thread to one of them, and he walked me over to one of MK"S print and he said, "You don't pull out this detail from a chart."

StoneNYC · Jan 2, 2013

Vaughn said:
Both friends are master photographers, master teachers, and incredible people. Most of the work has been given to them or in trade for their own work. Ruth Bernard to John Wimberley, Jerry U. to Linda Conner, etc etc! Truly amazing.

I was mentioning this thread to one of them, and he walked me over to one of MK"S print and he said, "You don't pull out this detail from a chart."

Nice to know good nice honorable photographers exist.

My "teachers" who I assisted only 3 times stopped talking to me when I was accepted into the same competition as them, blocked from social networks (Facebook) etc. I felt bad, I wasn't bragging I had in fact said I was honored to even be considered in the same realm as them (they shoot for Vogue etc.) and in turn they cut me off, as if I had stolen all the talent from them.

So it's nice to hear stories like that.

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Vaughn · Jan 2, 2013

There are a lot of instructors (and professors) out there...but all too few teachers.

How come Michael Kenna's nighttime shots always look so bright?

ted_smith

StoneNYC

RalphLambrecht

bobwysiwyg

StoneNYC

DWThomas

Vaughn

ted_smith

Bill Burk

StoneNYC

MattKing

Moderator

cliveh

Bill Burk

Vaughn

MattKing

Moderator

Brian C. Miller

jvo

Dan Williams

Vaughn

StoneNYC

Vaughn

StoneNYC

Vaughn

StoneNYC

Vaughn

How come Michael Kenna's nighttime shots always look so bright?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency