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

Paul Viapiano viapiano at pacbell.net
Fri Jan 20 18:13:18 GMT 2012 

Gordon,

Is that similar to lith film...?

Paul



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gordon Holtslander" <gjh at shaw.ca>
To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list" 
<alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 9:58 AM
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Ultra Long Exposure Reciprocity Failure?


Try one of these films:
http://www.ultrafineonline.com/lhsulifi.html

I use them for my pinhole cameras. with something like Soemarko's LC1
http://shelbyvilledesign.com/LC1.htm

It doesn't appear to have significant reciprocity failure

Printing paper when used in a film situation has an ASA of 6, - the 
ultrafine in LC1 has an effective ASA of 1, with long exposures.

Gord

----- Original Message -----
From: Francesco Fragomeni <fdfragomeni at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:11 am
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Ultra Long Exposure Reciprocity Failure?
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list 
<alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>

> 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
> completeddigitally. I'm clear on how that particular process
> works. I'm curious
> about making super long exposures on film and dealing with the
> reciprocitythats 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>>
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________**_________________
> >> Alt-photo-process-list |
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo

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