Citiscapes at Night Using B&W Film

[d_f11]

<p>Is it possible to get a good citiscape at night using B&W film without incorporating technology? Virtually all the shots I've seen started out with film(negative), then were scanned - "tweaked"/changed,improved, well call it what you will. I'm sure if it is, it takes alot of darkroom skill...?</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Yes, same as doing it on transparencies. You get it right, on the film, there is no chance to post process an Ektachrome slide. :) <br>

You can do a fair bit in the darkroom with prints, Photoshop started as an electronic version of darkroom techniques, just some what easier to use and way easier to go over the top with when "fixing" shots that really should go in the circular file.</p>

 

[mike dixon]

"B&W film without incorporating technology"

 

No. B&W film requires extensive use of technology in its design and manufacture; it doesn't grow on trees. Similarly, B&W printing paper also requires well-developed technology. The chemicals and lenses are also manufactured products.

[mark_l6]

<p>Actually it's really easy, I did a series on london at night in the 80's. Used a 4x5 linhof, tri-x. Printed in a darkroom, real easy. Allow for reciprocity, under-develop to reduce contrast, then the negs print easily, great fun. In case you forgot, none of us had digital 20 years ago, we still took good photos!</p>

[machts gut]

<p>You probably won't come away with it without a little bit of darkroom work, but you can make things a bit easier if you shoot at dusk, when there are already city lights on but still a little bit daylight left. In b&w you won't see the difference in th sky, which in colour would be dark blue instead of black.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>In case you forgot, none of us had digital 20 years ago, we still took good photos!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't be silly. There were no great photographs before 2001!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Night photography with what passed at the time for fast film and fast lenses has been practiced back as far as photographer patience and the sheer duration of night allowed.</p>

<p>As Mike properly points out, this involves a great deal of technology, just not Photoshop technology.</p>

<p>Why do you think the program was called "Photoshop"? It was because it mimicked (and the little icons for tools still do) the operations of the old film and chemical production process, but in digital form (which is much easier, by the way).</p>

[richardsperry]

I use my iPhone to time my night shots.

 

 

 

I read somewhere that Brassai would smoke a cigarette and when it was done, that was the time of his exposure.

[Didier Lamy]

<p>Brassai said that at night he new only two exposure times based on how long it took to smoke a cigarette: a "Gauloise" (fast, for clear nights) or a "Boyard" (slow, for total darkness [a great old cigarette without filter and enough tar to cover a parking lot])</p>

[jeff_schraeder1]

<p>My techniques for night photography:<br>

No tripod:<br>

TMax 400, F2.0, 1/15th, 35mm or 24mm lens (reduces effect of camera shake) Brace against something or really concentrate of staying still, focus a little in front of the point of interest and hope for the best.<br>

Tripod:<br>

TMax 100 (low reciprocity failure makes it actually faster than TMax 400 on ling exposures), F8, 80 seconds, focus on point of interest and hope for the best.<br>

In all cases try to keep very bright lights out of the frame. One of the images in my gallery (Pont des Arts Cat # 02061-04) used a technique of hiding a bright light behind an object to illuminate other parts of the scene. This image was made using a Fuji GSW90 on a tripod on TMax 100 at 80 seconds. Night photography requires more imagination in the use of all your resources.</p>

[jeff_schraeder1]

<p>My techniques for night photography:<br>

No tripod:<br>

TMax 400, F2.0, 1/15th, 35mm or 24mm lens (reduces effect of camera shake) Brace against something or really concentrate of staying still, focus a little in front of the point of interest and hope for the best.<br>

Tripod:<br>

TMax 100 (low reciprocity failure makes it actually faster than TMax 400 on ling exposures), F8, 80 seconds, focus on point of interest and hope for the best.<br>

In all cases try to keep very bright lights out of the frame. One of the images in my gallery (Pont des Arts Cat # 02061-04) used a technique of hiding a bright light behind an object to illuminate other parts of the scene. This image was made using a Fuji GSW90 on a tripod on TMax 100 at 80 seconds. Night photography requires more imagination in the use of all your resources.</p><div></div>

[robert lee]

<p>Fuji Acros is <em>the</em> film for long exposures. It needs no exposure compensation out to around 10 minutes. This helps tremendously in recording a rich tonal scale. The difficulty with exposure compensation is that the "compensation" doesn't usually work that well. </p>

<p>Most scenes are not uniformly gray. Better lit parts of it requires perhaps no exposure adjustment, but the darker sections really could use that extra +2EV or more of time. The problem, of course, is that selective exposure of the frame is impossible.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>Do you incorporate technology when you shoot Acros 100 for long exposures?</p>

<p>That was the OP's question.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you incorporate technology when you shoot Acros 100 for long exposures?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll take this to mean whether I do relatively more extensive post with Acros than some other film, say, Tri-X? No. Acros is very much better behaved than Tri-X for long exposures. That's the point. More of the image information is recorded in an accessible manner means less the need for aggressive techniques later, e.g., stand development, contrast masking, etc.</p>

<p>The way I read the question is that it intimates processing after the exposure detracts somehow from the "purity" of the shot. To each his own certainly, but do realize that darkroom compensations of all sorts is as old photography itself. It's just that the tools for doing so are much better now.</p>

<p> </p>

[russ_kerlin]

<p>Absolutely! First, recognize that you need to adjust for reciprocity failure. Second, be sure to give it enough exposure to bring out shadow detail and achieve a good, printable negative. Third, consider using a compensating developer or development technique that effectively controls contrast and prevents highlights from being blown out. This includes stand development, two-bath developers and the "N-3" technique by Mark Citret that I have commented on elsewhere.</p>