Edward Weston's long exposures

[jean_marie_dederen]

Reading through Weston's daybooks, I came across several references to exposure times of 3 hours, and even six

hours. The subjects were his famous shells and even more famous peppers. The photo's were taken indoors with a

graflex 8X10 and Weston is known for using the f64 smallest pareture on his camera. Very low asa rated film was

available in those days, but still 3-6hrs exposure times? The results, incidentally, are detailed and well toned prints.

Why such long exposures and how did they result in printable matter?

[randall ellis]

I'm no Edward Weston expert, but if I understand it correctly, he was working inside his house, where the lighting was low, with slow films and very small apertures. I believe that he also developed by inspection, which gives amazing control over the negative. He had intimate knowledge of the materials and tools he was using, and he was a master printer. The end result is what we see today.

 

- Randy

[john_hugens]

What exactly does "developed by inspection" mean? Did he use a non-panchromatic film and examine it under a red light, as with developing paper?

 

Thanks,

 

-John

[jean_marie_dederen]

What film can tolerate a 6 hour exposure on the smallest aperture and still render a brilliant print?

[ellis_vener_photography]

you use a very dim green safelight light not a red one. John Sexton has done some interesting work using a very dilute solution of TMAx developer with TMax 100 films and gotten brilliant long tonal range negatives as a result. I think he wrote about discovering this technique in his book "Places of Power".

[jim_appleyard]

Developing by inspection, DBI, is what it says, looking at the neg while it's developing. This is done by safelight, usually green (that's the color our eyes see best in) and pulling the film out about halfway thru the dev cycle and looking at the neg for a few brief seconds to "see" how it's coming along. The low level light will not fog the film for the brief time it's in the light, besides, half the cycle is done anyway.

 

The photographer then decides to go more time, less time, how much agitation, etc.

 

I'll try to find a link for you.

[jim_appleyard]

Good reading here:http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Inspection/inspection.html

[mikeseb]

Randall has it. Demonstrates that even with relatively primitive materials, a master can get results.

 

@John: just so. Orthochromatic film under a dim red safelight.

 

@Jean-Marie: film inside a camera clamped firmly to a sturdy tripod, wielded by a guy who knows what he's doing from

start to finish.

 

It's the ultimate expression of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights". Even accounting for reciprocity

failure, he's considerably overexposing the film; developing by inspection, he develops only until highlight detail is

preserved, and not beyond. I believe many of his images were contact prints (someone please correct me), making it all

the more important for him to get it right with the negative.

[bruce_watson1]

The actual answer is reciprocity failure. This is the film's lack of ability to form a latent image due to not enough photons. To correct for this, you have to give the film the photons it needs -- and this means exponentially raising exposure times when making exposures in the dark. And f/64 in a dark room is really dark to the film, thus the really long exposure times.

 

All he was really doing was exposing for the shadows. It just took a really long exposure time with the film/developer he was using. No biggie.

[randall ellis]

I believe that he used glass plates in the beginning, and then film when it became more commonly available. Which emulsions he used I have no idea, but I'd bet that there are some Edward Weston scholars here who can provide that info.

 

- Randy

[jean_marie_dederen]

Michael: Yes, both Edward and Brett weston produced mainly contact prints. When parkinson disease made it impossible for Edward to print, his son Brett produced the prints for him. He often asked Brett to make adjustments: manipulating a contact print couldn't have been easy either?

Bruce: Understanding the limits to overexposure belongs to the realm of the master printer. Definitely a biggie, not so?

[lex_jenkins]

Long exposures can be made with any film. It's all a matter of the available light, shutter duration (it's no longer shutter "speed" when the shutter is open for more than a second), aperture and the sensitivity of the film/emulsion.

 

Contemporary photographers using contemporary films who wish to capture the pattern of star trails still use very long exposures. In some cases they may use neutral density filters.

 

Most of my own long exposure, nighttime photos were made using ordinary films - Tri-X, FP4+, TMX, HP5+, etc., nothing special. I use 35mm and medium format cameras. Apertures range from wide open to f/22, with exposure times ranging from 1 second to an hour or longer.

 

It's impractical to meter for such conditions. Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer (a slight misnomer - it's actually a collection of charts and tables) is an excellent reference for understanding the relationship between light and exposure:

 

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

 

Getting good results depends on understanding the reciprocity characteristics of a given film, development (I don't develop by inspection) and trial and error. Plan on burning a lot of film while exploring long exposures.

 

Okay, now the good news... this ain't rocket science.

 

Most contemporary b&w films all have excellent reciprocity characteristics. Some are better than others but none of the most common films are bad. I've gotten excellent results using auto-exposure in my Nikon F3HP. I just choose the aperture, set the camera to aperture preferred AE mode, press the shutter and walk away. That's it. In most cases this simple trick worked as well as my carefully calculated long duration exposures, taking into consideration the available information about reciprocity, etc.

 

I also bracket in full stops. Bracketing in stops finer than a full stop is usually a waste of effort with b&w film. Even color slide film has produced good results for me with full stop bracketing. For example, if you try one exposure of 30 seconds at f/8, don't bother with fine increments. Make exposures of 1 minute, 15 seconds, etc. You won't see any significant difference between 30 seconds and 40 seconds.

 

I also like to use Diafine and very dilute Rodinal for these experiments. Rodinal at 1:200 for two hours with stand processing works well. (Stand processing in this case means an initial normal agitation period of inversions for 30-60 seconds, then no further agitation for two hours.)

 

Experiment. Discover for yourself. This has been one of the most rewarding approaches to b&w photography I've tried.

[jean_marie_dederen]

Lex: thanks for your lengthy contribution. My nikon FE (not the FE2) measures equally accurate under low light conditions. In fact I use it as a lightmeter when I shoot with the 500C! FredParker's text will be tonights reading; if my kids complain about not helping them with their homework, I'll refer them to you!

[bruce_watson1]

<i>Bruce: Understanding the limits to overexposure belongs to the realm of the master printer. Definitely a biggie, not so?</i>

<p>

It's not over exposure. It's correct exposure. And since I understand it, I must be a master printer? I wish that were true. No, I think it's just a function of understanding the craft side of photography.

[fourthst]

As has been said, slow film, low light, small aperture and reciprocity failure account for the long exposures. I do a lot of

pinhole work and my exposures are often several minutes with an occasional foray into an hour or so. For exposures of

several seconds or a couple of minutes the reciprocity charts are quite adequate to get one started. Beyond that I rely on

Kentucky windage. Remember, if you are off your exposure by 1/2 second on a 1 second exposure you are off by

50%. However if you are off by an hour on a 5 hour exposure you are only off by 20%. Now I don't know if that is exactly

correct but I find a fair amount of latitude with the longer exposures. I shoot Ilford FP-4 and use TD-16 in a Jobo.

[jean_marie_dederen]

I found some interesting reference to weston's 'craft side of photography': the peppers were apparantly shot with an 8 1/2 inch lens (on his 8x10). He wasnt happy with the DOF though so he cut out a piece of a black tin and made a small hole in it. He then placed this into the shutter of his graflex; and spent a whole week shooting his pepper, until he got what he wanted. For me, that's called passion.And in Weston's approach the quest for technical perfection is integral part of his high quality creative act. It's not just a tool to get there. His aesthetic understanding of the subject matter and his skills are meaningfully linked (in addition to being of the highest standards). Yes, in my humble opinion, they are 'big deal'. We all experiment with low light; but pushing it to the limit, exploring it to the fullest, should not be belittled as 'understanding the craft side of photography'.

[bruce_watson1]

<i>We all experiment with low light; but pushing it to the limit, exploring it to the fullest, should not be belittled as 'understanding the craft side of photography'.</i>

<p>

Oh please. Why in the world would you interpret what I said as belittling anything? That's just silly.

<p>

One of the great teachers (could have been Adams?) used to teach that you had to understand the craft of photography (the mechanics of the camera, the sensitometry of exposure, the chemistry of processing, etc.) and practice them so they became automatic. All this so that you could let that stuff run on autopilot while you concentrated on making art. Understanding how film reacts to light isn't going to make you a great artist or a great printer. But it will improve your competence in the craft, and that foundation will allow you to improve as an artist.

<p>

My experience has convinced me that this is true. But clearly, YMMV.

[jean_marie_dederen]

Sorry Bruce, 'belittle' was probably the wrong word. What i meant was simply that the relation between process (experiencing the act of creating something) and product (the artistic result) CAN be richer (more meaningful) than a simple cause---result relationship. And exploring the qualities of light, or the properties of film (the ways of recording those qualiites) became one of the central concerns of photography. Weston's long exposures. in my opinion, I maintain, were attempts to overcome technical challenges and explore unchartered territory. thats what I find fascinating about the issue. I am not pretending that it is the alpha and omega of photography. But it is certainly a form of photographic expression that will be remembered. I do not deny that craft (technical knowhow) CAN ALSO be a simple background/foundation for the production of fine prints. Adams is of course a perfect example of that approach. technical skill is in any case not a prerequisite for artistic production. But the last two positions simply do not apply to Weston's Pepper no.30, at least not in my opinion.

[chris_waller]

Bruce,

 

I concur absolutely with what you say. I would draw an anlaogy with pianists who practise scales and arpeggios up and down the keyboard for hour after hour until they are so familiar with it they can forget about the notes on the score or which finger hits which key and just concentrate on the music.

 

Even after 25 years as a serious photographer I still have regularly to practise my 'scales and arpeggios' with film and developer.

[jean_marie_dederen]

Chris

Playing piano and writing the music are, of course, two different matters.

[gt1]

Chris' analogy with playing music is more relevant than it would be with writing it.

[jean_marie_dederen]

Greg, that may well be, but what I meant to say is that playing music is altogether a crippled metaphor. Playing piano is by definition mainly a matter of technique. So, getting your fingers to find the keys on automode in order to play music is almost a tautology. Playing somebody else's tunes (which is what most of us ordinary mortals do) is essentially an act of reproduction. Composing the music, on the other hand, belongs to the realm of creativity. Weston belongs to the category of composers. Some creative geniuses, the graphic artist Escher is probably a good example, focus on technique to innovate form. They look for new, often difficult ways and means to challenge existing modes of expression. They experiment with matter, material and technique, the process of creation. Weston's low light close-ups, development by inspection and modification of contact prints exemplifty a kind of creativity that integrates process and product and, therefore, leads the way or at least inspires others, like myself. Which is why I brought up the issue of long exposures in the first place.

[gt1]

"Playing somebody else's tunes (which is what most of us ordinary mortals do) is essentially an act of reproduction."

 

So is photography. Part of the photographer's art is in the interpretation while making that reproduction just as part of the musician's art is in interpretation of the written music.

[jean_marie_dederen]

Obviously, there are virtuoso performances of music which require more than mechanical reproduction.

But again, the issue I am intersted in is the relationship between process and product and the relevance it has for a better understanding of creative culture. For many it is a simple matter of adichotomy; a cause-result relation. I respect that. From my encouters with African master woodcarvers in the region where I live, I have learned how creativity can also be defined as as a battle with the materials and techniques of production. I just wondered if the same applied to some of Weston's print making, especially his long exposure close ups. I believe that part of his creative genius lies in not taking techniques for granted; or phrased differently, in challenging accepted wisdom and experimenting with unorthodox ways of production.

[gt1]

I like the woodcarving analogy, "a battle with the materials and techniques of production". There sure are a lot of materials and techniques to be used with film.