Need help shooting fire

[keytarjunkie]

Hey all. I don't know where to turn..

I've been shooting some friends who spin fire-lit objects and I'm having difficulties. I have been making digital test shots with the same ISO, shutter speed, and aperture...when I shoot them on 4x5 it just doesn't look the same. The fire doesn't pick up. The fuel they were using was this red scarlet stuff, so I'm thinking maybe the light it omits doesn't get recorded as easily on film? I'm shooting tomorrow and I'd like some help.

Test shot:

4x5:

It just doesn't show up at all! Here are some more 4x5s:

(missed the focus)

This one I boosted the levels of the fire in photoshop, but it was definitely the most useable.

They are all around 1-3 seconds, f/11, iso 160.

Any advice on how to make the fire stand out more? I was worried that it would be too bright, but it just didn't show up at all...

 

[saxshooter]

are you using some sort of studio lights or flash? looks like it is overpowering your red fire. Maybe dial down the light a bit.

 

[jan normandale]

for starters let us know some details like what film, iso, etc

 

[keytarjunkie]

Sorry.

Two vivitars on full power.
kodak portra 160nc.
3 seconds.
f/11.

I'm more concerned with why they showed up on digital and not on film, though.

 

[f16sunshine]

I agree that the flash is washing out the flame. Not sure why the digital shot works better but I have a guess. I think the ISO's are not the same even if labeled so. Your film is more sensitive than your digital cam. I like the one you say is missed focus. A friend of mine will love that. I'll forward it on.

 

[thegman]

A few guesses:

Portra 160 NC is a portrait film which I believe takes some red out of the skin to be a bit more flattering, so we don't look ruddy. It could be taking some red out of your flames too.

Maybe reciprocity failure is playing a part, it's just a few seconds exposure, but might be having an impact.

You could maybe try a more saturated film, maybe Ektar, Provia 400X, or maybe Velvia.

I think your shots look like they show real promise though, I think if you sort out the "missing" flames, they'll look great.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A few guesses:

Portra 160 NC is a portrait film which I believe takes some red out of the skin to be a bit more flattering, so we don't look ruddy. It could be taking some red out of your flames too.

You could maybe try a more saturated film, maybe Ektar, Provia 400X, or maybe Velvia.

I think your shots look like they show real promise though, I think if you sort out the "missing" flames, they'll look great.

Unlikely, as the instantaneous exposure of the fire is a fraction of the exposure of other parts of the scene. Think how long it is exposed on any one place on the film.

I agree with cutting the fill flash -- at least by half (one gun), maybe more.

Cheers,

R.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Thanks guys. Those are all things to think about. I will cut down on the strobes, and maybe use a different film. I have some ektar lying around.

 

[Sparrow]

1/4 sec at f5.6 on 400 superia is also not the way to go ... I only had a Bessa L and a 12mm with me at the time, so somewhere between the two is likely to be best

 

[Brian Legge]

I wonder if the darker background is also making a big difference here? The brightness of the sky in the later shots will definitely make the flames less visible.

I've photographed spinners digitally a few times before. Nailing the exposure to get the finer details in the flame was tricky and required a lot of iteration. I'd expect a lot of latitude though, leaning towards over exposure of the fire. Also keep in mind that this is a function of how quickly they're spinning and how long they've been going (brightness changes over time as fuel is spent).

I'd expect a less exposure to give you flame that looks like this (f/16, 1 second at 200):

..and over exposure to give you something more like (f/5.6, 2 seconds at 200):

Simplest answer would be to wait until it is a little darker out and turn down the strobe to increase the relative brightness of the flames.

It also looks like your digital test shot was taken a lot closer to the subject. The distance alone could have skewed your metering a bit as light falls off quickly.

If possible, frame the flames against a darker background. I'd suggest shooting from a higher elevation if you're using that location but that could be tricky with a 4x5, particularly with long exposures. 😉

 

[dave lackey]

Sorry.

Two vivitars on full power.
kodak portra 160nc.
3 seconds.
f/11.

I'm more concerned with why they showed up on digital and not on film, though.

Sorting this out with a digital camera is easier. Start with cutting flash power. Then run tests shots from 1/16 second up to 2 seconds and compare them. Once you are happy with the digital results, try the film and see which one works best for you.🙂 Then adjust from there.

I don't know if you noticed but some digital cameras work better in dark situations. Using my D40 in low light gave very different results.

Once you get it right, re-post and let's see your results.

 

[MartinP]

Same as everyone else, the flash is overpowering the fire. Try taking a static reading of the fireball light-value, then balance the flash around that, but bearing in mind you will lose a lot of exposure at any particular point if the time is long because the fire is moving past so quickly. You could end up with a wide open aperture and a shorter compromise on the very long shutter speed. Edit: take a direct reading off the flames and then drop three stops - as though you were reading reflected light of a white object. At least that's a starting point.

As for the digital camera difference, differences in iso and differences in the ir sensitivity maybe??

 

[jan normandale]

I'm used to shooting this stuff without a flash and I think Roger's earlier comment is a good piece of advice. I normally shoot this around sundown to 30 minutes after so I have some 'lingering light' while taking advantage of the illumination of the flames.

Interestingly I also shoot using similar exposure and ISO for this kind of photography to "Sparrow". I tend to shoot at f4.0 and 1/4 second with 400 ISO film to catch the face however if it's not necessary to do that, then go for a longer exposure with a higher f stop. Remember to expose adequately or your "blacks" will come out grainy and nasty.

Add my experience to the pile and with these replies you should be in a position to get traction with your photographs. Good luck!

 

[keytarjunkie]

Thanks everyone. I discovered that the problem was really just the fuel we were using. Probably that plus the speed they were spinning and the fact that the light the fuel was giving off was also starting to die.

Shot this one on Sunday, not as happy with it but at least I know the fire shows up fine.

And also a non-fire one

 

[jan normandale]

Thanks everyone. I discovered that the problem was really just the fuel we were using. Probably that plus the speed they were spinning and the fact that the light the fuel was giving off was also starting to die.

Shot this one on Sunday, not as happy with it but at least I know the fire shows up fine.

Are you using the Mamiya 7 for this?

 

[keytarjunkie]

Nope, borrowing a speed graphic. Kinda wish I owned a camera with movements!

In the future I might do this on the Mamiya, when I don't want the crazy tilting. Or the 4x5 rangefinder, which doesn't have movements either.

 

[jan normandale]

FWIW: I've found the Mamiya 6 RF to do a credible job in low light or dark. I'm sure a Mamiya 7 RF would be as good or better. Something to think about for back up on this project.

About the Speed Graphic... that's going to be amazing. Post some pix if you get a chance.

 

[BillBingham2]

Keytarjunkie,

Your issue is about of light being given off by your burning “things”. The flash is overpowering the fire only for the 1/10,000 of a second or so of the actually fires. You are developing the film for the exposure of the flash. You need to find the balance between your flash exposure and exposure for the burning “things”.

You are right on your approach to use the flash as the main source for everything but the fire. The challenge is finding the right mix of film and exposure variables f-stop and shutter speed. You want the exposure slow enough to only show the image frozen by the flash and fast enough to show the path/trail of the fire.

It’s great you are using a crown graphic, stay with it, she is a great camera for this.

As you are working with a three second exposure so try some different f-stops, wider. I think you said f 11 so try it at f 5.6 and see how much of the background you see when you develop for the fire. You might try shots at f 4 and f 8 at the same time. You should loose any discernable image of the person walking when you overlay the exposure with the flash, when you do it right.

There was a photographer Chris Callis in NYC who did a lot of creative work like this, really cool stuff. Here is a quick article by one of his assistants.

http://www.ppmag.com/articles/19/Th...d-his-return-to-simplicity-in-portraiture.php

I did a lot of work with using flash to paint light onto buildings and stuff in High School some years back. Tri-X, a Nikkormat and a 24/2.8 Nikkor set about f8 worked really well. Never saw the dozens of places I fired the light from. You can do the same with any film camera, haven’t tried it yet with digital.

Good luck.

B2