Ian has a good point but again it's not unique to picture #3!
It also kicks in with low light levels. 1/30 at f2 with a 400 ISO film is OK if there's enough light, but borderline, but if there's underexposure, that will be exaggerated. Also remember that night scenes are at much lower colour temperatures compared to daylight, that has an effect on the film's effective speed.
Ian
The Lab did it for me
Here's the reason. Pic 3 has been scanned to suit the actual scene (leave the shadows dark) where the other 2 have been scanned trying to get detail in the shadows and introducing lots of 'noise' in the process.
haven't thought of that. No i bought a scanner yet (but planning to). The Lab did it for me
That's what I meant by "printing". If some sort of auto-correction is done in the printing or scanning (or even manual correction), you would expect these kind of differences from print to print.
From what I recall, Kodachrome (at least 25 and 64, that I used) started exhibiting reciprocity failure below 1/2 second, maybe even 1/8.60 or 70 years ago, when Kodachrome's speed was maybe 10 or 12 ISO, I did some night photography like Joey's. Fortunately, the camera had shutter speeds down to one second, and some results were good. Exposures could be not fractions of seconds, but sometimes whole seconds if I stopped down. I often braced myself or the camera against buildings or light poles for those exposures. A tripod would have been useful, but inconvenient to pedestrians. Metering for precise exposures was usually unreliable. Bracketing the exposure wasted film, but was cheaper than returning for a reshoot.
60 or 70 years ago, when Kodachrome's speed was maybe 10 or 12 ISO, I did some night photography like Joey's. Fortunately, the camera had shutter speeds down to one second, and some results were good. Exposures could be not fractions of seconds, but sometimes whole seconds if I stopped down. I often braced myself or the camera against buildings or light poles for those exposures. A tripod would have been useful, but inconvenient to pedestrians. Metering for precise exposures was usually unreliable. Bracketing the exposure wasted film, but was cheaper than returning for a reshoot.
Wrong camera for that specific task.
Wrong camera for that specific task.
If your longest shutter speed option is 1/30th, then I agree. You need a camera that allows you much longer exposures for night work.
I don't use film camera for low light.
No doubt "low light" photography may mean something different to every photographer. But for my kind of "low light photography", I can't use anything but film . . .
BTW, low light photography can be very challenging even when you're using the most sophisticated gear. In my first serious attempt I was using an EOS 3 which at that time was as good a meter as was available and yet I managed to grossly underexpose this image on Fuji RVP100F film. In this case it was clearly user error as apparently the camera was trying to warn me that the result was going to be grossly underexposed but I didn't know that at that time!
Fuji RVP100F_06-22 by Les DMess, on Flickr
Since then I've learned that the EOS 3 has a maximum exposure time of 30 seconds in aperture priority mode so I used it with that limitation in mind or resort to bulb mode for exposures lasting longer.
I have no problem determine correct exposure for low light with film. Just that when the light is low I can't shoot film hand held or the subject is moving a bit.
But for my kind of "low light photography", I can't use anything but film
I like your images but lacking experience in low-light photography (film or digital) I do not understand why this would be the case. This is a bit off-topic here but if you have time to share your experience in a different thread that would be awesome.
Digital can absolutely do long 10 minute exposures, but most digital cameras I've used require 20 minutes to do a 10 minutes exposure. After taking the actual exposure, it closes the shutter and takes another 10 minute exposure with no light. This reads the noise from the sensor which is uses to remove it from the picture you just took. I don't know if this is common/required for good long exposures, but is something my digital cameras do.
Digital can absolutely do long 10 minute exposures, but most digital cameras I've used require 20 minutes to do a 10 minutes exposure. After taking the actual exposure, it closes the shutter and takes another 10 minute exposure with no light. This reads the noise from the sensor which is uses to remove it from the picture you just took. I don't know if this is common/required for good long exposures, but is something my digital cameras do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?