[alt-photo] Re: Ultra Long Exposure Reciprocity Failure?

Francesco Fragomeni fdfragomeni at gmail.com
Fri Jan 20 17:24:02 GMT 2012 

Yea, I've heard of similar experiences in which people have said the film's
reciprocity characteristic seems to just basically become irrelevant. Very
interesting.

-Francesco

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Diana Bloomfield <
dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Okay, yeah- I'm thinking the people I know who have done long exposures
> like that-- it's been with paper, not film.   I think the longest I've ever
> done an exposure, on film, was ~36 hours.  That was inside and light
> changed drastically, including total darkness-- After a certain point, it
> didn't make any difference-- and the images weren't overexposed either.
>  Strange.   That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject. :)
>
> Diana
>
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Francesco Fragomeni wrote:
>
>   Hi Diana,
>>
>> We're on the same page. I know that week and month long exposures can and
>> have been done but to my knowledge this is mostly done in pinhole cameras
>> with paper rather then film. I'm particularly interested in how film
>> reciprocity behaves at such long exposures. The Osterman's did indeed have
>> their show and the work was related to what I'm doing. In reality they
>> were
>> doing something more closely related to whats typically done with
>> solargraphy i.e. long exposures which print out the paper which is then
>> immediately scanned (only one chance to so this because the scanning light
>> further exposes the image) and then the rest of the process is completed
>> digitally. I'm clear on how that particular process works. I'm curious
>> about making super long exposures on film and dealing with the reciprocity
>> thats involved.
>>
>> -Francesco
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Diana Bloomfield <
>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>   Hey Francesco,
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm still not clear on what you're asking, but I know they're have
>>> been a lot of pinhole photographers who have set cameras out for weeks
>>> and
>>> months at a time.  Greg Kemp, for one, has done that-- months long
>>> exposures-- don't know if he used film or paper, though.  I'm sure there
>>> are plenty of others out there (mostly pinhole photographers that I know
>>> of) who could give you their experience.  Somebody here might have Greg's
>>> current email address, too.  The last time I wrote to him, the old email
>>> I
>>> had bounced back.  (And didn't the Ostermans just have their show at
>>> Tilt,
>>> from Lacock Abbey, where they had their cameras out for a long period of
>>> time (weeks?), or am I mistaken??
>>>
>>> Diana
>>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Francesco Fragomeni wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the information and insight. I wanted to offer a quick
>>>> clarification so that everyone is on the same page as I am when I say
>>>> "ultra long exposures". I'm talking about exposures well beyond hours.
>>>> I'm
>>>> referring to exposures in the duration of weeks, month, and even years.
>>>> The
>>>> extreme nature of such exposures is what led me to believe that there
>>>> may
>>>> be a possibility that reciprocity failure behaves differently or becomes
>>>> irrelevant entirely with such long exposures. I've done pinhole
>>>> exposures
>>>> and lensed long exposures into the hours before without much problem
>>>> (mainly based on the times that others have provided or basic guesswork
>>>> based on manufacturer datasheet info) but I'm talking about going into a
>>>> whole different realm of long exposure.
>>>>
>>>> Michael Wesely's work work documenting urban development such as the
>>>> re-building of the MOMA building in NY were indeed ultra long exposures
>>>> and
>>>> not time lapse. The MOMA images were 34 month exposures through 4
>>>> pinhole
>>>> cameras. MOMA invited him to do this project and authorized designated
>>>> areas for his cameras so that they could be insured the cameras would
>>>> not
>>>> be disturbed during the ultra long exposures. In some of the images
>>>> where
>>>> the sky is visible you can see the progression of the sun. These images
>>>> would in fact be considered Solargraphs on film I suppose. The
>>>> progression
>>>> of the sun's path is continuous and you can see the changes in season as
>>>> well as when weather was clear vs overcast. It is textbook Solargraphy.
>>>> Other images do not include a view of the sun and this confirms that
>>>> such
>>>> long exposures can be made without view of the sun. Remember, in my
>>>> original post I was wondering if the extreme brightness of the sun
>>>> played
>>>> some role in the exposure of paper in Solargraphy. Wesely is using film
>>>> I
>>>> believe but I haven't been able to confirm that. He might have used
>>>> paper
>>>> which would have made reciprocity irrelevant but the images look more
>>>> like
>>>> film then paper to me.
>>>>
>>>> -Francesco Fragomeni
>>>> www.francescofragomeni.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Diana Bloomfield <
>>>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Francesco,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've only used very long exposures with pinhole cameras as well.  Of
>>>>> course, there are published reciprocity charts out there.  (Check Eric
>>>>> Renner's 'Pinhole Photography: Rediscovering a Historic Technique').
>>>>> Although his published charts include only pinhole F-stops, I still
>>>>> think
>>>>> you could glean something from them.  And I do think that the
>>>>> information
>>>>> that comes with film (or used to?) is fairly accurate-- at least for
>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>> But from my experience, I agree with Gord here that some films "don't
>>>>> seem
>>>>> to vary significantly past a certain duration of exposure."  That's
>>>>> certainly been my experience (and not just with this high contrast
>>>>> film).
>>>>>
>>>>> I will also add that the published reciprocity charts I used never
>>>>> seemed
>>>>> to offer all that much help to me.  I typically base my long exposures
>>>>> on
>>>>> the type of film, the type of (pinhole) camera I'm using, and the
>>>>> available
>>>>> light-- basically calculated guesswork, erring on the side of
>>>>> over-exposure.  (Quite scientific!).  But with the right development,
>>>>>  I
>>>>> never seemed to have a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Diana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Gordon J. Holtslander wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't offer any mathematical insights,  however the pinhole camera on
>>>>>
>>>>> film work I have done usually involves long exposures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started doing pinhole work with large format high contrast contact
>>>>>> printing film and processed it with Dave Soemarko's LC1 developer
>>>>>> mixed
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> minimize contrast in order to get a continuous tone negative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When used with this developer the film has an effective ASA of 1.
>>>>>>  Shots
>>>>>> taken outside on a cloudy day would need an exposure of 1/2 hour.  I
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> took a series of indoor photos where the exposure time as in the range
>>>>>> of 6
>>>>>> to 8 hours.  As long as I metered accurately my exposures were
>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>> regardless of the exposure time - from 15 minutes in full sun to 8
>>>>>> hours
>>>>>> inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Used in this way the film (at the time Kodak CGP) did not seem to
>>>>>> exhibit
>>>>>> any reciprocity failure, or perhaps the reciprocity failure did not
>>>>>> vary in
>>>>>> the range of exposure I was working with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point is that perhaps with extremely long exposures the sensitivity
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> this film is consistent, and does not vary significantly past a
>>>>>> certain
>>>>>> duration of exposure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was possible to get reciprocity compensation data for certain
>>>>>> film. I
>>>>>> don't think is was calculated, but done by empirical testing of each
>>>>>> type
>>>>>> of film.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try doing some empirical testing and see if your film shows a
>>>>>> continually
>>>>>> increase in reciprocity failure, or if it stops or decreases after a
>>>>>> certain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Photograph a grey scale in dim conditions and increase the exposure
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> and see what effect it has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also read that when electronic flashes were first used, some films
>>>>>> suffered from reciprocity failure due to extremely short exposure
>>>>>> times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gord
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________******_________________
>>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/******listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/****listinfo>
>>>>> <http://altphotolist.**org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo>
>>>>> >
>>>>> <http://altphotolist.**org/**listinfo <http://altphotolist.org/**
>>>>> listinfo <http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>>>>
>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/****listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo>
>>>> <http://altphotolist.**org/listinfo <http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/****listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo>
>>> <http://altphotolist.**org/listinfo <http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
>

More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list