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

Francesco Fragomeni fdfragomeni at gmail.com
Fri Jan 20 21:42:40 GMT 2012 

Hi Gord,

I'll check that out.

Hmm, maybe I'll just build a pinhole camera with some film in it and go
shove it somewhere for a year and see what happens. My feeling is that with
such long exposures reciprocity isn't as much of an issue as it is with
more moderate long exposures.

I'll also play with some of the equations some of you provided and see if I
can extrapolate very long times from them.

Thanks to everyone for the help!!

-Francesco

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Gordon Holtslander <gjh at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Hi:
>
> Yes this is a like a lith  film.
>
> Gord
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Paul Viapiano <viapiano at pacbell.net>
> Date: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:13 pm
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Ultra Long Exposure Reciprocity Failure?
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list <
> alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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