Fast, I mean Fast, color film?

Al Denelsbeck wrote:

Once I even know I can capture the effect, uh, effectively, then I
can work on setting up the circumstances to get a photo that isn't boring
as hell.

Capturing what I've seen, such as expanding ripples from a rock
tossed in, or the outlines of dolphins chasing meals, seems totally
impossible. Really a shame, but whatcha gonna do?

a) get a f/1.2 lens (no you don't care if you your camera meters cause you
will use it wide open and with a long exposure)

b) push process the provia or better, get superia 1600 and push that by 1/2
stop

c) get a floating tripod

Provia 400 actually is quite (as in - reciprocity failure is consistent)
good for *LONG* exposures, you just need to compensate.



- Al.


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:54:24 GMT, Al Denelsbeck
wrote:

Nick Zentena wrote in
:

Al Denelsbeck wrote:


I could very well be responsible for giving people epilepsy if
I
tried that, since what I'm trying to capture is bioluminescence in
the nearby sound/lagoon. The effect is so faint, about like
moonlight, that only a long time exposure is going to catch it, and
only by sustaining the turbulence that creates it.


Then don't you want a film with good reciprocity [who knows how
it's
spelled] more then a fast film?


Actually, I couldn't care less if they know how to spell it... ;-)

But basically, no. The last experiment I did involved several long
exposures, the longest being three minutes. During that time, I maintained
the turbulence by hand - my own. By the barest fraction, I registered
enough light on the film (Superia 400, what I had loaded at the time) to
find a frame edge. That's not enough.

So for the sake of my arm, I'm trying to avoid stirring up the water
fiercely for 12 or 24 or more minutes.

I should note, before someone suggests it, that this is an open water
phenomenon. Bringing samples back to produce the effect within a tank have
failed, and the effect wasn't even visible within 100' of shore last night
(thankfully the water remains shallow for a long ways). So lots of
"assistance" options are out of the question, and no, I don't own a boat.

Once I even know I can capture the effect, uh, effectively, then I
can work on setting up the circumstances to get a photo that isn't boring
as hell.

Capturing what I've seen, such as expanding ripples from a rock
tossed in, or the outlines of dolphins chasing meals, seems totally
impossible. Really a shame, but whatcha gonna do?


- Al.

Sounds good to me... and I'll bet you're a Jefferson (Airplane)
Starship fan.

RP©

In article ,
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote in
:

And most digital SLRs go up to 1600 or 3200; you probably couldn't buy
one just for this project, but perhaps a friend could loan you one?

Well, maybe tomorrow ;-)

If you're going for broke, maybe find a shop which will rent you a Canon EOS
1Dmk2 and a 50mm f/1.0 lens. If that doesn't get what you want at 3200 ISO,
there's not much that's going to...

In article ,
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote in
:

And most digital SLRs go up to 1600 or 3200; you probably couldn't buy
one just for this project, but perhaps a friend could loan you one?

Well, maybe tomorrow ;-)

If you're going for broke, maybe find a shop which will rent you a Canon EOS
1Dmk2 and a 50mm f/1.0 lens. If that doesn't get what you want at 3200 ISO,
there's not much that's going to...

Al Denelsbeck writes:

There's an effect I desperately want to try and capture on film, but
it's exceptionally dim and short-lived. Experiments with 400 speed film
produced virtually nothing.

Are there any color films, print or slide, that push well? I mean,
really well? Like 3200 or better? Detail is not a serious issue, contrast
not a problem, but light sensitivity is paramount.

Fuji Superia 1600 does not underexpose too well, but might be worth
a try.

I've often used Provia 400 F pushed to stops to 1600, with very
good results. It is spec'd up to 3 1/2 stops (ISO 4800), so
I would expect at still good results at 3 stops and 3200.

Regards,
Chris

--
Bokeh test images: http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html

Sander Vesik wrote in
:

Al Denelsbeck wrote:

Once I even know I can capture the effect, uh, effectively,
then I
can work on setting up the circumstances to get a photo that isn't
boring as hell.

Capturing what I've seen, such as expanding ripples from a
rock
tossed in, or the outlines of dolphins chasing meals, seems totally
impossible. Really a shame, but whatcha gonna do?

a) get a f/1.2 lens (no you don't care if you your camera meters cause
you will use it wide open and with a long exposure)

b) push process the provia or better, get superia 1600 and push that
by 1/2 stop

c) get a floating tripod

Provia 400 actually is quite (as in - reciprocity failure is
consistent) good for *LONG* exposures, you just need to compensate.

Have you used it at more than one stop push? I haven't tried yet, but
100F, which pushes exceptionally well, was crap for long exposures, because
repicrococsity failure (Hi Nick!) simply extended it to non-push exposure
times.

Seems like a lot of fuss that could be prevented by simply going for
long exposures, and I've done them in excess of an hour - that doesn't
bother me. The thing is, the luminescent effect from turbulence lasts about
1/4 second, so I have no hope of getting it in 'detail'. What I have to do
is sustain turbulence in an area and settle for the milky unclear results,
probably silhouetting a subject. The longer the exposure time, the worse
this will be - my arm will fall off after about five solid minutes of
thrashing, I think.

The floating tripod is a good idea ;-). But one of the areas where I
can observe the effect remains shallow for hundreds of meters out, so I can
work on a standard tripod without difficulty. Unfortunately, out there,
there isn't jack in the way of subject matter, nothing but sand. So I'll
have to provide my own subjects, as well as the method of agitation. Maybe
a toy boat motor...


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Rich Pos wrote in
:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:54:24 GMT, Al Denelsbeck
wrote:

Capturing what I've seen, such as expanding ripples from a
rock
tossed in, or the outlines of dolphins chasing meals, seems totally
impossible. Really a shame, but whatcha gonna do?


- Al.

Sounds good to me... and I'll bet you're a Jefferson (Airplane)
Starship fan.

RP©


Okay, Rich, I have to admit I have no idea what you're referring to
here. Could be because I never got into JA/S...


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Rich Pos wrote in
:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:54:24 GMT, Al Denelsbeck
wrote:

Capturing what I've seen, such as expanding ripples from a
rock
tossed in, or the outlines of dolphins chasing meals, seems totally
impossible. Really a shame, but whatcha gonna do?


- Al.

Sounds good to me... and I'll bet you're a Jefferson (Airplane)
Starship fan.

RP©


Okay, Rich, I have to admit I have no idea what you're referring to
here. Could be because I never got into JA/S...


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

"Martin Riddle" wrote in
news
Use Hyped astronomy film? I understand that you can purchase it
allready hyped or roll your own.


THAT's one that didn't occur to me! I read about that some months
back and never made a connection. If I recall, gas-hyping is only really
good for a few hours, so you can't make tries on successive nights with it
(astronomy-wise), but it might work well in these circumstances.

Now if I could only find the references I had at that time. Google
searches are coming up pretty slim right now.

Thanks!


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Christoph Breitkopf wrote in
:

Al Denelsbeck writes:

There's an effect I desperately want to try and capture on
film, but
it's exceptionally dim and short-lived. Experiments with 400 speed
film produced virtually nothing.

Are there any color films, print or slide, that push well? I
mean,
really well? Like 3200 or better? Detail is not a serious issue,
contrast not a problem, but light sensitivity is paramount.

Fuji Superia 1600 does not underexpose too well, but might be worth
a try.

I've often used Provia 400 F pushed to stops to 1600, with very
good results. It is spec'd up to 3 1/2 stops (ISO 4800), so
I would expect at still good results at 3 stops and 3200.


I'll have to try it, I guess. I routinely used 100F pushed two stops
(320 actually), but as I said above, for long exposures it decayed too much
and wasn't worth the extra expense. Didn't get brighter, shorter star
trails like I was after, since it was stretching out to about the same
exposure times as unpushed.

Provia hates those sodium streetlamps in popular use nowadays,
responding poorly to their narrow spectrum - I wonder how it might render
bioluminescense? Only one way to find out...


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net