Long exposure portraits (pls post examples if you can)

[Cloudy]

Hi folks,

I have always shot 4x5 portraits using studio lights to have short exposures, but recently a forum user recommended experimenting with long exposures and portraiture and I'm intrigued.

What's the longest exposure portrait you've ever taken? Do you have any tips/tricks to get the model to stay still (I don't know, poses for example)? Do you ever get blurry pictures and if so, are they a desired effect?

Please post your examples here; I'm looking especially for large format examples, but all formats are welcome

Thanks

 

[radiant]

In wetplate the sitters need to stay still for many seconds, if you're not using 2500Ws of flash power.. Wet plate photography is full of long exposures. They use "headrests" where the sitter places back of their head. The headrest is usually behind the model so it is not visible in the photo, sometimes it is. Check Shane Balkowitsch work for example.

I took a photo of my significant other and daughter last summer with 4 seconds exposure time on paper negative. Both completely sharp. My daughter was even holding icecream - it was her idea to make it even more difficult

Point is that they need to lean somewhere with their head. In previous example they were against birch tree so they had support.

 

[removed account4]

hey cloudy !
sorry I am throwing you to my page instead of uploading them in the thread but I don't have them handy in my computer. ...
these were done with paper negatives and just the modeling lights ( through a pair of Larson soff boxes )
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/reuploaded-portrait-paper-negative.59294/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/portrait-reworked.59302/

longest exposure a sitter has sat for me is probably more than 45sec maybe, closer to 1 min? I've done a lot of paper negative portrait making over the years
its a fun cheep and easy way to make portraits, no flammable fumes or crazy chemistry like other 19th century processes and the paper is readily available worldwide
I also do it with film, it is usually expired and processed in coffee, and it has a different tonal scale because its pan film, not orthochromatic-esque paper.

John

 

[Cloudy]

Wow, John, those are stunning! They look so painterly, especially the first one.
Today I finally managed to leave my flat to photograph a friend and try natural light/long exposures with the large format camera, but the longest exposure was only a second as I felt kinda bad asking her to stay still for longer since it had already taken me ages to set up the camera and focus

 

[MattKing]

In both examples, I have blurred the faces.
Several minutes - using a pinhole camera.

Here is a more regularly exposed version, shot at the same location within minutes of the other:

 

[Cloudy]

Thanks for replying, but the whole point of the thread was to see portraits with long exposures to judge the results and compare, so it doesn't really help if you blur the faces

 

[MattKing]

The pinhole faces are slightly blurred - particularly the woman. If you knew her, and knew how energetic and active she is, you would be amazed that she stayed as still as she did.
Long exposure will mean less of the connection that can flow through the subject's eyes to the viewer.

 

[removed account4]

Wow, John, those are stunning! They look so painterly, especially the first one.
Today I finally managed to leave my flat to photograph a friend and try natural light/long exposures with the large format camera, but the longest exposure was only a second as I felt kinda bad asking her to stay still for longer since it had already taken me ages to set up the camera and focus

thanks cloudy !
I know what you mean ( taking time and feeling awkward asking to sit still for a while ). but once you get the hang of it
as you set your camera up you can warn your subject that its going to take a little bit of time, a second or two or ten or 30 . and it will be a fun. and they will undoubtably appreciate the time spent.... the fun collaboration between the two ( or more ) of you. as you know non-candid non-street from a distance with a telephoto &c portrait making ( whether at 1/60thS with a flash or fast film or slow is an intense dance / collaboration / working relationship ( long term or short term ) between the person with a camera and the subject. ez to see you have the skills to take beautiful portraits, long exposure-stuff is just another skill to put in your camera bag ...
found another. ...

a year and 1/2 ago I brought an olde Rollie and slowish film to a shop I visit often and asked D ( the guy behind the counter ) if he would mind if I took his portrait. it was dimly lit and I handheld and he stood still for IDK 5 or 10 seconds


have fun ! ( and don't give up ! )
John

 

[Cloudy]

Thanks for the encouraging words, John; you're right, I should try to do more and worry less about bothering the model. I have just written to another friend of mine who has a really big plant that she's quite proud of that I would like to take her portrait with the plant. That should be a perfect opportunity to experiment with long exposures.

This is the digital test for the longest exposure I have done today (I still have to develop the film), it was one second at f/16. I usually shoot portraits close up and wide open, so it was nice to try an environmental portrait with enough depth of field across the whole frame

 

[Cloudy]

In wetplate the sitters need to stay still for many seconds, if you're not using 2500Ws of flash power.. Wet plate photography is full of long exposures. They use "headrests" where the sitter places back of their head. The headrest is usually behind the model so it is not visible in the photo, sometimes it is. Check Shane Balkowitsch work for example.

I took a photo of my significant other and daughter last summer with 4 seconds exposure time on paper negative. Both completely sharp. My daughter was even holding icecream - it was her idea to make it even more difficult

Point is that they need to lean somewhere with their head. In previous example they were against birch tree so they had support.

Thanks for the tips, I'll check Shane Balkowitsch work, but I'm pretty sure already that I'll love it because I love the wet plate look

Would you be able to share your results or best not?

 

[removed account4]

Thanks for the encouraging words, John; you're right, I should try to do more and worry less about bothering the model. I have just written to another friend of mine who has a really big plant that she's quite proud of that I would like to take her portrait with the plant. That should be a perfect opportunity to experiment with long exposures.

This is the digital test for the longest exposure I have done today (I still have to develop the film), it was one second at f/16. I usually shoot portraits close up and wide open, so it was nice to try an environmental portrait with enough depth of field across the whole frame

that's nice ! 1 second ? can hardly tell .. im sure your friend can sit still like that for like 30sec ez pz ...
you like the wet plate look you should definitely try to shoot paper negatives, even in a 35mm or 120 format http://filmwashi.com/en/. ... not quite the same tonal range as wet plate but similar ...

 

[MattKing]

I like that as well.
But note how the eyes appear - relatively lifeless.
It is tough for subjects to keep eyes stationary, even if they are able to stay otherwise still.
In olden days, when exposure times had to be long, re-touchers would add imitation catch lights to eyes afterwards in order to deal with just this reality.

 

[Cloudy]

that's nice ! 1 second ? can hardly tell .. im sure your friend can sit still like that for like 30sec ez pz ...
you like the wet plate look you should definitely try to shoot paper negatives, even in a 35mm or 120 format http://filmwashi.com/en/. ... not quite the same tonal range as wet plate but similar ...

Thanks, I'm really curious to see the 5x4, but I'm knackered and I'm going to bed soon, so they'll have to wait for tomorrow.
30 seconds?!? I don't know, it seems like A LOT.
I have shot MG 8x10 paper using a large format camera that was lent to me and it was cool, but it didn't look like wet plate

 

[MattKing]

Looking quickly through the examples on your site, this might work well with a long exposure:

 

[Cloudy]

I like that as well.
But note how the eyes appear - relatively lifeless.
It is tough for subjects to keep eyes stationary, even if they are able to stay otherwise still.
In olden days, when exposure times had to be long, re-touchers would add imitation catch lights to eyes afterwards in order to deal with just this reality.

OMG, you're right! I knew there was something I didn't like about it, but I couldn't put my finger on it and you are spot on! How do you add catch lights?

 

[Cloudy]

Looking quickly through the examples on your site, this might work well with a long exposure:
View attachment 263556

I don't understand what you mean...the pose?

 

[MattKing]

OMG, you're right! I knew there was something I didn't like about it, but I couldn't put my finger on it and you are spot on! How do you add catch lights?

With a small, sharp retoucher's knife (and some considerable skill) on the surface of the print.
Or with a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of opaque on the negative (and way more skill than I'll ever master) on the negative itself.
Or by adding them digitally.
Before you do any of this, look at a bunch of photos that show naturally occurring catch lights, and pay particular attention to examples where the light source is of similar character and coming from a similar direction as the photo you are working on. You can then decide whether to emulate that appearance.

 

[MattKing]

I don't understand what you mean...the pose?

The eyes are almost hidden - no catch lights to particularly worry about.
In this particular case, part of the power of this image is that it is slightly creepy. If you blur or deaden the eyes, it would be even more creepy.

 

[MattKing]

This may show my age, but traditionally if you could tell what sort of studio lighting was used through observing the shape and number of the catch lights, you would retouch out all but a single catch light or, in some cases, remove all the catch lights and then add a single catch light in its place.
That isn't done much now.
Take a look at this example from your website:


The softbox or other large but artificial light source that you used (quite well) here reveals itself in those catch lights. For fun, take this image, darken those catch lights and replace them with a single small catch light in their centre. Then compare the two versions, side by side. See if the difference makes a difference in the impression created.