Did I do all I could do?

[Hjortsberg]

Hey guys.

I took a B&W (Kodak Trix, Leica M3, Summicron 50mm) photo at a gas station at night. put the camera on a tripod and placed it outside the drivers window. shot through the car and out the passenger window (windows rolled down) at a buddy standing looking into the car. buddy is completely in silhouette and it looks kinda spooky. I exposed for the shadows so I would get that inky black darkness. I believe it was a one second exposure or maybe 2 seconds. (all at f16) I also bracketed and did some quicker exposures (also at f16) but the blacks lost the inkiness I wanted for the photo.

So I went with the longer exposure. Of course the problem now it the lights of the gas station behind my buddy's silhouette are really blown out.

So I get an 81/2 x 11 print made and tell them to bring down the lights of the gas station. They did, but it still seems to bright.

So, my question for the experts is this: Did I do all I could do? Meaning without control of the Gas station building lights (like having them on a dimmer), did I do all that I could with just a guy with a camera (w/no lighting units) or did I miss some trick somewhere.

as always, Thanks!😱

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Probably not much you can do. Extreme differences between lit areas and unlit areas are the norm in night work. What do you mean by inkiness? If you had exposed for the bright lights, the dark tones would be totally deep black...to me that's inky.

 

[Hjortsberg]

Probably not much you can do. Extreme differences between lit areas and unlit areas are the norm in night work. What do you mean by inkiness? If you had exposed for the bright lights, the dark tones would be totally deep black...to me that's inky.

I don't know how else do describe it except for inky. Like I said I bracketed so I did some longer exposures and that yielded some really rich, deep, inky black blacks. On shorter exposures the blackes became not as rich and kind of murky grayish

 

[zauhar]

This is really interesting. I was struggling in the darkroom tonight with the same problem but the opposite goal - my figure has strong light behind him but I want to bring up his brightness while reducing the background. I had in fact "exposed for the shadow" (my subject) so that the background was blown when I printed. I was experimenting with dodging the subject (with some success).

In your case, there must be some "non-linearity" in play - f/16 with 1 second might actually be putting less density on the film (in the shadow) then f/2 at 1/60, which should be the same exposure assuming linear behavior. Chris, is that possible?

Randy

 

[zauhar]

I think I answered my own question - the articles I found on film reciprocity failure suggest that at low intensity you need more exposure to achieve the same density. So, by exposing at f/16 you ensured that the shadow regions would be maximally under-exposed.

Randy

 

[Brian Legge]

Only thing left that comes to mind is pulling the film to reduce contrast.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think I answered my own question - the articles I found on film reciprocity failure suggest that at low intensity you need more exposure to achieve the same density. So, by exposing at f/16 you ensured that the shadow regions would be maximally under-exposed.

Randy

Some films handle long exposures better than others. Tri-X has reciprocity failure problems at exposures longer than about 1/2 second. Fuji Acros 100 allows exposures up to 2 minutes with no correction needed, and only a half-stop extra exposure needed for exposures from 2 minutes to 16 minutes! This 100 speed film is actually faster than 400 Tri-X in very low light because Tri-X needs so much extra exposure in low-light. I've done 5 minute exposures with acros with gorgeous results.

 

[Hjortsberg]

think i got in a little over my head w/this film reproicty stuff😱

 

[taskoni]

... If you had exposed for the bright lights, the dark tones would be totally deep black...to me that's inky.

That's your answer.

Just out of curiosity do you have it scanned so we can see it?

Here's an example how I do it:

Ilford Delta Pro 400 f/5.6 @ 1/125 sec.


You can try retouching the final print, making the black pitch black is an easy fix on the paper.

 

[Hjortsberg]

That's your answer.

Just out of curiosity do you have it scanned so we can see it?

Here's an example how I do it:

Ilford Delta Pro 400 f/5.6 @ 1/125 sec.


You can try retouching the final print, making the black pitch black is an easy fix on the paper.

no scanner. all money went to m3/film/processing. sorry.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

no scanner. all money went to m3/film/processing. sorry.

film and processing are cheap..the Leica is where your money went, lol!

Do you have a digital camera you could photograph the the neg on a lightbox, then we could tell you more easily what went wrong. Gotta see the film!

 

[zauhar]

think i got in a little over my head w/this film reproicty stuff😱

Out of curiosity, what made you choose f/16 with such a long exposure? Why not a wider aperture so you might not have to use a tripod?

But, I think reciprocity failure would explain why your approach gives you a more "inky" black in the shadows. I don't use a tripod, but I might experiment with a longer exposure than I normally use and see if I can get this effect.

Randy

 

[Hjortsberg]

Out of curiosity, what made you choose f/16 with such a long exposure? Why not a wider aperture so you might not have to use a tripod?

But, I think reciprocity failure would explain why your approach gives you a more "inky" black in the shadows. I don't use a tripod, but I might experiment with a longer exposure than I normally use and see if I can get this effect.

Randy

I went with an f16 to get maximum depth of field. I don't know about this reciprocity failure, tho. I like the inky blacks

granted guys, I'm new. I could be doing alot of things wrong