Trying to understand C41 film.

[Les Sarile]

I can understand waterfall effect you get that with a deliberate long exposure. Regarding the night scene with the water building cityscape, Portra 800 and 15 minutes. You can get a similar look without such a long exposure right? Yes the water was smoothed out more but for a typical night scene of buildings. Eg .. if one was shooting slide film maybe something like Provia 100F which works up to 120 seconds officially without reciprocity. 120 seconds might be more than sufficient for a typical city night cityscape right?

Let's try another comparison which might be closer to what you are thinking. Back when I only had an EOS3 50mm f1.4, I went to the Hoover Dam at night, put the camera on aperture priority using Velvia 100. When I metered the scene, it was telling me underexposure so I put the lens wide open and it was still not enough. I took the shot anyway and got this . . .

Well many years later I revisited that scene in a similar position but this time armed with the LX and Kodak Ektar 100 and got this . . .

This is from the same roll as above and I am certain I was at least f11 and the autoexposure time must have been similar as above. No doubt many years later and a lot of things affecting exposure may have changed too.

It just dawned on me as I write this that the only way to prove that the exposure time could have been shortened is with a second setup shooting the same scene but with the shorter exposure time and have the scene come out equally exposed.

I'll let you know the next time I got out to shoot so you can shoot the second setup . . .

 

[Les Sarile]

Normal photography wisdom says. Shoot at box ISO speed, meter accurately and if required pop a 10 stop ND filter on.

Another reason I test the films I like to use so that I would know at the system level what I can get away with and most color negatives have overexposure latitude to spare . . .

Looks like if I am using Kodak Portra 400 that I won't need an ND 10 filter. I've also tested Portra 160 to have the same latitude while Kodak Ektar 100 is a little less.

For instance I saw a scene that the meter suggested 1/60 but I needed 1 or 2 seconds to smooth it out. Using Kodak Ektar 100 I knew I can get away with and it turned out that way.

 

[Les Sarile]

Ayyyy another LX user, with the FA-2 too! Nice setup as well.

It's a looker and a very capable camera too!

 

[Les Sarile]

Regarding the night scene with the water building cityscape, Portra 800 and 15 minutes. You can get a similar look without such a long exposure right? Yes the water was smoothed out more but for a typical night scene of buildings. Eg .. if one was shooting slide film maybe something like Provia 100F which works up to 120 seconds officially without reciprocity. 120 seconds might be more than sufficient for a typical city night cityscape right?

I remembered I took some night cityscapes with my EOS3 and Fuji Provia 400 back when. I wasn't too happy with the results because I remember I had to shoot close to wide open in order to satisfy the meter not to be so underexposed which means DOF wasn't optimal. As you pointed out, obviously the water wasn't as smooth. Since these were taken with my EOS3 the longest exposure would have been 30 seconds.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Thanks yep. Possibly a couple of seconds maybe with the places I have been at anyway. Canon should have a cable release right a digital one might be.