Inspiring work.

[hoakin1981]

Can someone pls explain how such work is possible using film?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxxwellsmart/sets/72157627104241303/

Is it the post-process, the film/developer combination, the quality of the optics, the photographer's skill?

What I find mostly inspiring and intriguing is that the film's natural grain is gone. Everything is smooth as silk but still tack sharp were it needs to be.

I mean I would never guess such shots were analog.

 

[Jesper]

Very long exposure times. Notice how much the stars have moved during the exposures of the night sky.
Nothing fancy, very easy to make exposures like these.

 

[baachitraka]

It the format, film and developer and together with long exposure. But nobody knows about PP after scanning.

 

[darkosaric]

As already said: good tripod, 120 format with good lens, good film like Ilford or Kodak iso 100, long exposure - and you are there.

 

[baachitraka]

After a while, I find long exposure is rather boring.

 

[darkosaric]

After a while, I find long exposure is rather boring.

For me - best long exposure ever:

Dead Link Removed

Guy is a genius.

 

[snapguy]

Anything

Anything can be overdone. Short exposure, too.

 

[marciofs]

As far you bring a nice book and a comfortable chair it is ok.

 

[gone]

Obviously the combination of long exposures, the use of 120 film, and the right developing play into it, but I would advise caution when making decisions based on what you see online w/ your computer monitor. Who knows what sort of digital post processing has been done to the images?

His lighting is spot on (again, could be post processing for all we know), but the shots are too clean for my tastes. Too digital looking. But that's just my tastes.

 

[NedL]

For me - best long exposure ever:

Dead Link Removed

Guy is a genius.

Thank you! That Venice is wonderful, among all the other wonders at that site.

 

[ROL]

Start with long exposures, as indicated. Despite the stated use of heavy filtration in at least one shot, I suspect all were heavily post processed digitally. There's simply no indication that they are anything but digital representations. I predict these will all soon be called fine art electronic prints or e-prints - finally shortened simply to fine art prints by artists within the decade. This kind of long exposure used with slower moving objects was quite the rage in the past decade, no matter medium. Be aware that this dreamy long exposure technique can become problematic with fast moving objects, like rushing rivers, people, vehicles. I find the beauty of these images to be offset by their overwhelming gloom – thoughtful more than inspirational.

 

[MattKing]

Mark Koegel is a local photographer who does a lot of this, and does workshops as well. Here is a link to part of his website: http://www.silverlandscapes.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=1&pt=0&pi=2&s=30&p=-1

He does most of his current work using digital, but has a good selection of earlier work done on film, and advocates both methods.

My photo club had him in for a workshop. I was thinking of playing around with some of this using a TLR and some of my remaining Plus-X - with long exposures, reciprocity failure can sometimes be your friend.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Thank you! That Venice is wonderful, among all the other wonders at that site.

Agree , his crowd pictures are a geniuses work.

Thank you.

 

[summicron1]

click on the first image and s/he answers your question---as others said, ver very long exposures: Sonoma Coast State Beach -

The Summer months along the Northern California coast are usually thick, and grey. More days than not a thick marine layer sits above the beaches only moving out for a couple of short hours if at all. Recently there was a heat wave that moved through that pushed the marine layer off shore for the long weekend.

With the clear sky, and the sliver moon setting just after the sun I decided to put away the 10 stop ND filter, and wait for that magical edge of light. The quickly fading light can be difficult to work with. Metering the light to calculate exposure times is basically a waste of time, as the light has already changed by the time you dial in the proper exposure setting. On a completely manual camera system with no internal meter, there is not much to dial in. You don't have a choice of changing your film speed like you do with digital ISO settings. There are no 1/3 or 1/2 half stop shutter / aperture settings. I quickly gave up on trying to figure out the exposure times with the reciprocity failure of the film I was using, and went with my instincts. I set the lens to BULB, set the aperture to 16, locked down the cable release, and took a seat on the sand. I sat and watched as the light change with every passing second. Watching the light change on the sand, and the curling ocean waves, I somehow estimated the exposure time, and unlocked the shutter after 3 minutes. At this point a digital camera would reveal if my guesstimate was correct, but all I got was the sweet sound of the auxiliary shutter closing. I packed up my things and walked back to the car with a question of whether I was correct or not....

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In some of the photos atmospherics play a large part. Low light and fog mainly. Add to this the photographer's knowledge of his materials. There is not substitute for experience.

 

[darkosaric]

In some of the photos atmospherics play a large part. Low light and fog mainly. Add to this the photographer's knowledge of his materials. There is not substitute for experience.

Michael Kenna is proof of you statement .

 

[TheToadMen]

When you click on his images you can read his comments alongside the images.
Sometimes he mentions his equipment. It's not entirely analogue for sometimes he uses Silver Efex Pro 2.
Two examples:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxxwellsmart/5950905764/in/set-72157627104241303/
Camera- Hasselblad 500C/M
Lens - 80mm f/2.8 @ f/16
Shutter speed 1/2 second
Film - Kodak TMAX 100 - Developed with Kodak HC-110 dilution (H)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxxwellsmart/6069275595/in/set-72157627104241303/
Hasselblad 500 C/M
Zeiss 80mm f/2.8
1/250 - f/16
Lee .9 hard edge ND grad
Fuji Velvia 100 (converted in Silver Efex Pro 2)

 

[TheToadMen]

Beautiful image indeed. Looks like a time laps & multi-exposure.

For me - best long exposure ever:

Dead Link Removed

Guy is a genius.

 

[darkosaric]

Looks like a time laps & multi-exposure.

Yes. I was reading about Titarenko technique (did some tests myself): good start is 10-20 exposures, 1/2 sec each. There is a good documentary about Titarenko on youtube, where you can see him walking with Hasselblad and tripod on the streets of St. Petersburg.

 

[baachitraka]

This one stands out Dead Link Removed

 

[baachitraka]

Not a bad idea to travel during off season. ;-)

 

[mauro35]

In my computer screen, if I click on a single image from the OP´s link and enlarge it, I can see the film grain quite clearly, which is by the way very beautiful.

 

[Bill Burk]

Please look at the chart on Page 23...

Since the chart was created primarily with Tri-X figures, that would be a good film to start with. Then you won't have to extrapolate for other films' reciprocity failure characteristics...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)