PDA

View Full Version : sucking away time while NULFing



scootermm
11-29-2006, 03:43 PM
So recently I posted a print in the Critique Gallery ...
http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=19989&cat=500&ppuser=2057
it was my first foray into night time photography with my 7x17 (get it? NULF :) ). It got me to thinking. The other day I was doing a small write up on this photo and capturing the negative. Ive often done exposures in dimly lit industrial scenes that were in the 30+ min range, but this was the longest Ive ever exposed such a large sheet of film, at nearly 90mins (or so as I didnt really keep a strict stopwatch on it) and hopefully the first of many attempts at NULF.

Wondering is anyone else has any examples of ULF night shots. I would love to see any examples or hear others thoughts on the subject matter/concept.

TheFlyingCamera
11-29-2006, 07:26 PM
I don't have any ULF, but I've got some night shots from Argentina in my gallery done with the 5x7...

http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=18557&cat=500&ppuser=6785

That wasn't that long an exposure... perhaps 30 seconds. If memory serves, that was done with the 4 3/8" WA Dagor at around f16, MAYBE f22.

Colin Graham
11-30-2006, 09:40 AM
90 minutes? I always wondered how night photogs pass the time during long exposures.

Kerik
11-30-2006, 10:05 AM
Hey Matt,

I've done some NULF work, but I don't have the patience for too many 90-minute exposures. Personally, I'd use a faster film (ideally TMY) and open up a stop or 2. Looking at the image you posted, I think you could have gotten all the depth of field you needed with simple movements and f/16. If that lower left foreground was a little soft, it would make no difference IMO. But, if you like 90 minutes of Zen, disregard the above. Here's one shot on 14x17 HP5, 24" Artar, about 25 minutes @ f/22(?).

clay
11-30-2006, 10:17 AM
Matt,

TMY is the ticket for this sort of thing. For scenes illuminated with regular street lights, my exposures run about 4 minutes at f/22-32 (depending on how dark the shadow areas are) with this film. TX320 takes about 20 minutes at the same fstop. FP-4 and PL100 - fuggedaboudit. Twiddling my thumbs and hoping a car doesn't come by and screw up the shot for a 90 minute period is just too much for me.

scootermm
11-30-2006, 10:39 AM
hahaha. yeah kerik and clay you may be right.

maybe Ill try out some of that JandC 400 film when they open back up. the darn TriX and HP5 are just so darn expensive in 7x17. HP5 and TriX are just so darn expensive in 717.

although maybe its the masochistic part of me that enjoys the 90mins spent waiting around. Ive been known to enjoy torturing myself, its an ULF characteristic right? :)

naturephoto1
11-30-2006, 10:45 AM
Hi Matt,

Nice image. But torturing yourself does not seem to only be an ULF tendancy. ;) :D

By the way, when we take those long exposures (frequently hours) for star trails in any format size we also have the issue of what to do. That of course means staying warm if cold, making pit stops,.... :rolleyes:

Rich

Harrigan
11-30-2006, 12:34 PM
Matt re-read what Clay said about exposure differences btwn tmy 400 and tri-x 320. TM 400 is far superior to the others in the reciprocity department and this would be my choice for these type of images. JC 400 is probably no better than the other older type emulsions but it would at least shorten your waiting period considerably. I often do 15-20 minute exposures in dark shade with some really slow film I use and even that can be a bit much at times.

walter23
12-01-2006, 12:40 AM
90 minutes? I always wondered how night photogs pass the time during long exposures.

Depending on the circumstances we:

a) watch the sky
b) sit in the car and listen to music (a good option in sub-zero winter)
c) worry about nocturnal carnivores
d) try to keep other people from pointlessly firing flashes on their point & shoots, or bouncing on a boardwalk, or whatever (in tourist-hot spots).