3200 Speed Film and Long Exposures

[FilmDood]

In a couple weeks, I'm gonna be working on a photo project in Death Valley, CA. Since it's 100% pitch dark there, and lit up by simple moonlight, how long of an exposure would I need to produce results like this:
http://spillspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/deathvalleysky_nps_big.jpg

Any tips or tricks to not mess up your film? This is my first time working with a long exposure, so that would be great to know how to not mess up.

 

[molested_cow]

Depends on the light conditions, how bright the moon is and so on. I will also encourage you to improvise with what you have. Chances are that you will have a car. Try to let your blinker lights on and see what happens to the foreground. Try with your tail (red) light on and see. May be you have two cars, then you can have different colored lights lighting up different parts of the foreground.... etc. It's fun.

It also depends on what focal length you will be using. To get similar length of star trail in the sample photo, it may take 5 min on a 20mm lens, and less on a 50mm.

It's always been trial and error for me honestly. If you have access to a digital SLR, use that to test the shot first.

 

[maris]

The image you link to looks like a heavily processed composite of images from several sources, possibly even some contribution from film. Stars come out as streaks (earth rotation!) not dots for exposures of several seconds. A moonlit landscape starts to register in half an hour or so. Sharp stars and sharp landscape can't happen in one single long exposure.

 

[PJL]

I've heard (I have no actual experience with this) that lower ISO films are better for long exposures because of their chemical makeup -- high ISO films will "blow out" faster. Not to mention a shot like that wouldn't look all that great fouled up by heavy grain, IMO.

 

[Proteus617]

Start out at Fred Parkers site. You will be shooting at EV-3 to -6. Check out the times on the tables and remember they DO NOT account for reciprocity failure. Once you add in the RF, a smaller aperture (they are landscapes after all) and brackets, you are in for a very long night. Got a good locking cable release, stable tripod and stopwatch? A handheld lightmeter that can read low EVs is not a bad idea. Also, pushes and long exposures are a YMMV sort of thing, very dependent on film and developer choices. I'd want to test out my process before I head to the desert.

 

[Photogirl007]

Can you try a few different film speeds? Just to try out various effects?

 

[FilmDood]

I've heard (I have no actual experience with this) that lower ISO films are better for long exposures because of their chemical makeup -- high ISO films will "blow out" faster. Not to mention a shot like that wouldn't look all that great fouled up by heavy grain, IMO.

Yeah, I know lower ISO films are better, but it's for a photo project, so I don't have really any other choice. I talked to my teacher about it, and she said working with long exposures would be hard, but very doable.

The image you link to looks like a heavily processed composite of images from several sources, possibly even some contribution from film. Stars come out as streaks (earth rotation!) not dots for exposures of several seconds. A moonlit landscape starts to register in half an hour or so. Sharp stars and sharp landscape can't happen in one single long exposure.

Hmmm, so would I be taking separate images of the sky and landscape, and then possibly sandwiching? We did sandwiching last year, and some girl cut her two negatives and put them together, and the effect was beautiful, but I would like a clean transition so that could be tricky to do.

----Ahh, I seemed to have misread your point in saying that haha. I am going for streaky stars and such, so would a 30 minute exposure mess up the with the Milky Way band, or would that stay in place?-----

*kinda lazy to quote the rest* Haha
With the lighting, I'm going to be working with pretty much full moon lighting the entire week that I'm there, so I'm set on good lighting. Clouds shouldn't be too much of an issue, since.. well.. it's a desert.

I do appreciate all the feedback, I would love anything else anyone has to say!

 

[molested_cow]

With the moon in the sky, make sure you are in between the moon and the sky you are shooting, otherwise the moon will kill your shot.

Here's a 30min exposure for your reference:
Benton Harbor MI :: FH010002_1.jpg picture by molested_cow - Photobucket

Will you be developing your own print? If so, you don't need to cut the negatives. You can just selectively burn on the photo paper with different frames to compose the photo.

I've never shot with 3200 negative. I'd be afraid that the grain may compete with the stars.

Got a good locking cable release, stable tripod and stopwatch?

And a picnic chair.

 

[FilmDood]

That is a very nice image! Grats on the quality. :thumbup:
I will be developing my own prints, I've never been good at dodging or burning, I always get too harsh of lines. I always overshoot the time for it too. ;P

Hmm, I know that 3200 is very grainy, but I was thinking about doing another roll of film, I'm still not sure on the speed. As long as the film can be done in black and white negative, I'll take the lowest speed I could get, since I want at least one very sharp, very noise free photo of this.

I know that T-MAX has WAY more grain than Delta, so I'm sticking with Delta on this. Unless, there's another roll with less grain? I would try to keep it at a minimum, and another thing, does exposure time increase grain? I've heard it does, but have never been able to confirm.

With the moon, will that also disappear? Or will it be a giant blob of streaking white in the sky, or would it be safe to crop it out of my shot, as long as the light is directly overhead?

Ohhh, and another thing.. haha, I'm just full of questions *label me a new photographer please* I have a Canon Rebel EOS Ti, do they make shutter releases specifically for them, or is there a particular one that I HAVE to use, because I'm still in the process of buying one, since holding down the shutter causes shaking even with a steady tripod, I just want to be safe.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I don't know if that's entirely possible on film, and you can't just point-n'-shoot this either if you do it on film.

There's a few things about this:

Film has what's called reciprocity failure, meaning exposures that would normally take minutes, end up taking hours. anything longer than a few seconds is virtually impossible to calculate. The exposures needed for something like this might be too short to be possible on film. Digital doesn't have reciprocity failure.

You need bright lenses, f/1.4 at minimum, and the longer the focal length, the shorter your exposures need to be. A 35mm f/1.4 [/i]might[/i] work, 50mm won't.

The moon can't be out. If the moon's out, everything looks like daylight, you'd be sunk. When the moon is out, you start seeing the atmosphere, so then the number of stars out is cut out ten-fold, and you have atmospheric haze to fight with. Not to mention direct sunlight on everything because where does the moon get its light? the sun.

I've personally been able to get shots like this where you can see the milky way, but they had be shot at ISO 6400 and f/1.4 with a wide-angle to keep the exposures under 30 seconds, if the moon was out, it would just look like daylight and they wouldn't have worked. If your exposures go beyond 20-30 seconds, the stars aren't points anymore, and they become trails.

So in a nutshell, you probably need to shoot digital if you even want to see anything besides grain, and you need the fastest wide angle lens you can get your hands on.

To make things easy on yourself, you need to rent a D700 and Nikon's 24mm f/1.4. The Nikkor 24G is the best-corrected fast 24mm money can buy and the D700 is one of the best cameras in the world at ISO 6400, beat out only by the D3s.

Having this much detail when shot at such astronomical ISO's would be impossible on film:

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I've heard (I have no actual experience with this) that lower ISO films are better for long exposures because of their chemical makeup -- high ISO films will "blow out" faster. Not to mention a shot like that wouldn't look all that great fouled up by heavy grain, IMO.

Close, some films like Fuji's Acros 100 after about 2 minutes becomes more sensitive than even Kodak's Tmax 400 because Acros 100 is less sensitive to reciprocity failure.

I tried doing long exposures on film, and compared to digital, it doesn't work. It's almost impossible to accurately calculate the exposures, and you can't run high-pass on film to bring out more stars. When you can see what digital can reliably, and easily do, night shooting with film can be pretty pathetic. There are exceptions however, they are few though.

 

[molested_cow]

Well, considering that it's in the desert, with low humidity and hopefully clean air too, the air may not catch too much light.

Just make sure that the moon is behind you as much as possible.

 

[Proteus617]

Film has what's called reciprocity failure, meaning exposures that would normally take minutes, end up taking hours. anything longer than a few seconds is virtually impossible to calculate.

+1 on having to take RF into account, but it certainly can be calculated

...and the longer the focal length, the shorter your exposures need to be. A 35mm f/1.4 [/i]might[/i] work, 50mm won't.

Huh?

Having this much detail when shot at such astronomical ISO's would be impossible on film:

Depends on the film and developer. I agree that Delta 3200 would be a bad choice. Since you bring up astronomical ISOs...

TriX pushed to ISO 12,000 in Rodinal on a moonless night. A grainy film and a grainy developer that supposedly does not push well. The photo proves nothing except that when shooting in extreme circumstances a little testing and practice go a long way.

 

[FilmDood]

Hmm, how do you get the moon behind you? Baha, it's overhead, it'll be tricky to maneuver.

Is this idea a scrap? I talked to my teacher today with all the issues that you guys brought up, and she said I could be wise to choose my 3200 speed film project with another project, but still get these shots with film. I really do like the idea. Any other film speeds that anyone could suggest? I would love to get this project at least attempted.

Would my camera not be fine for a shoot of this? I've got no other lens other than my basic zoom lens, with my 35mm EOS Ti.