Is anyone familiar with this technique?

Several years ago Peterson's Photographic ran a series on the last page
of the magazine of "How To ..."; had a different photographer every
month who explained how he created the featured photograph.

One of the photos I remember was of a chemical plant all lit up at
night. It probably appeared in the early 90s.

The photographer used a double exposure technique, phtotographing with a
short exposure just after sunset while the sky was still fairly light,
and then exposing a longer exposure after full dark to get the
illumination from the lights.

What I remember was he suggested a "sunny 16" exposure 1/2 hour after
sunset (which is supposed to give you the blue sky & structure) and a
later exposure "sixteen times" the initial exposure (which is supposed
to fill in the night-time illumination - lights without burning out the
highlights).

Plugging in to ISO 100 film that gives 1/125 and 16/125 which I break
down to between 1/4 and 1/8 sec.

Except that it's not working. It ends up very underexposed ... It's
going to be very tedius to go out there night after night to experiment
to find the correct values, so I was hoping someone might be familiar
with this technique and can give me some info.

no_name wrote:
....

Except that it's not working. It ends up very underexposed
... It's going to be very tedius to go out there night after
night to experiment to find the correct values, so I was hoping
someone might be familiar with this technique and can give me
some info.

1) Borrow a friend's DSLR to experiment with.

2) Use google to search for discussions on taking pictures
of Christmas light displays.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"no_name" wrote

photo [in Peterson's mag] ... of a chemical plant all lit up at night. The
photographer used a double exposure technique ... a "sunny 16" exposure
1/2 hour after sunset ... and a later exposure "sixteen times" the initial
exposure ...
to fill in the night-time illumination

Except that it's not working [for me]. It ends up very underexposed ...
It's going to be very tedius to go out there night after night to
experiment to find the correct values, so I was hoping someone might be
familiar with this technique and can give me some info.

Sort of hard to make a roll of bracketed exposures.

If it were me I would bracket a few sunset exposures and a
few nighttime exposures and put it together in PhotoShop.

I've done it on slide film, can't remember the details as it was
some time ago but it was something like:

o The final picture was envisioned as 2/3 stop under exposed.

o Each picture was given half the exposure, a bit over 1.5 stops
[1.67 stops == 35%] under exposed. An average meter reading
was used for each.

The results looked OK, nothing jaw dropping.

If the goal is not to blow the highlights then I would meter
the highlights with a spot meter and expose the night half for
1.5 stops under the highlight reading. Spot meter, at night,
a portion that is supposed to come out normal, figure the
night half is going to be 1.5 stops under that and set the
sunset exposure to bring that area back to a normal exposure =
about a half stop underexposed by the meter. This assumes the
sunset half is made with the lights off.

If the lights are on as the sun sets then there should be a
magic moment when the two light sources balance. If the magic
moment is kind of blah then I don't think the plant is
properly lit up for this kind of photograph.

In photos for company reports I would not be surprised if the
photographer has placed HID luminaires to light up the
sides of tanks, possibly with some colored gels to liven things
up.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"no_name" wrote

photo [in Peterson's mag] ... of a chemical plant all lit up at night. The
photographer used a double exposure technique ... a "sunny 16" exposure
1/2 hour after sunset ... and a later exposure "sixteen times" the initial
exposure ...
to fill in the night-time illumination

Except that it's not working [for me]. It ends up very underexposed ...
It's going to be very tedius to go out there night after night to
experiment to find the correct values, so I was hoping someone might be
familiar with this technique and can give me some info.

If the lights are on as the sun sets then there should be a
magic moment when the two light sources balance. If the magic
moment is kind of blah then I don't think the plant is
properly lit up for this kind of photograph.

I've had good luck just waiting for that magic moment with a bit of blue
glow remaining in the sky & the lights on with one exposure. Normal
metering seems to work then with the bright lights leaving the sky
darkish. You could try 2 exposures then & burn the second for more of
the lights to get them more blown.

Paul Furman wrote:
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"no_name" wrote

photo [in Peterson's mag] ... of a chemical plant all lit up at
night. The photographer used a double exposure technique ... a "sunny
16" exposure 1/2 hour after sunset ... and a later exposure "sixteen
times" the initial exposure ...
to fill in the night-time illumination


Except that it's not working [for me]. It ends up very underexposed
... It's going to be very tedius to go out there night after night to
experiment to find the correct values, so I was hoping someone might
be familiar with this technique and can give me some info.


If the lights are on as the sun sets then there should be a
magic moment when the two light sources balance. If the magic
moment is kind of blah then I don't think the plant is
properly lit up for this kind of photograph.


I've had good luck just waiting for that magic moment with a bit of blue
glow remaining in the sky & the lights on with one exposure. Normal
metering seems to work then with the bright lights leaving the sky
darkish. You could try 2 exposures then & burn the second for more of
the lights to get them more blown.


Followup:

I've been looking through old Peterson's Photographics at school. We've
got 1977 - 1987 in our "library" in the photography dept. The school
library has 1997 - whenever the magazine ceased publication.

The article I remember appeared in one of their monthly "Comp Book"
features. Haven't found the particular issue I remember, but I now know
it was some time between 1987 and 1997 (having quickly perused the
issues in the two libraries). I've got the issue boxed up somewhere at
home, but haven't had the chance to locate the correct boxes

I'm actually looking for this particular technique because I tried it
before several years ago and it gave me exactly what I wanted. This time
I'm using a 4x5 view camera and really want to get it right in camera,
not photoshop.

Although the image is important, the real purpose here is to develop my
skills.

If anyone happens to remember Comp Book & has old Peterson's
Photographic issues handy, I'd appreciate a tip off to the particular
issue I'm looking for.

I don't know about applying a sunny 16 rule. I've heard of that and
have never used it. I make sure to grab an exposure reading from an
object that is in the overall light in the composition. So I'd say -
blow off the article.

First, you just want to do a double exposure so both exposures should
be at 1/2 the value for EACH exposure. The problem here is that both
exposures are in different light situations - the 1st one much brighter
than the 2nd. I'll assume that you are going keep the aperature
constant and vary the shutter - tripod of course.

The fixed aperaturebecones a constant so don't consider it. All you
need is to take the first shot at 1/2 the meter reading - easy. Then
the 2nd shot needs to be varied to get the correct exposure.

For arguments sake, imagine the first shot metered to a 1/2 sec shutter
(dbl ex shot taken at 1/4 sec) but the 2nd shot reading was 1 sec. Then
the scene for the 2nd shot is half as bright as the first. The
questions is - do you 1/2 or quarter the 2nd shot shutter speed. I'd
say - who cares about the difference in light levels - the effect you
want is to superimpose a darker sky and bright lights onto a post
sunset sky. If you want the darker sky of the 2nd shot to reduce the
overall light then just half the shutter - the darker scene will reduce
the light of the 1st shot. If you want the 1st shot of the brighter sky
to be predominant (you want that bright pale look), then 1/4 the
shutter for the 2nd shot.

So - given the above - 1st shot at 1/4 sec and 2nd shot at 1/2 sec - OR
- 1st at 1/4 sec and 2nd at 1/4 sec.

So shoot a roll till you have 4-8 shots left. Assuming you will be
varying exposure by shutter speed, not aperature, try the shots clean
like above -
#1 at 1/4 then 1/2,
#2 at 1/4 then 1/4

then you want to over or underexpose depending if you are shooting
slide or negs.
#3 - #1 above -1/4 to 1/3 underexposed for slide, +1/2 to 1 to 1.5 or
more if negs

Also, you said you are underexposed - then repeat your process but
overexpose one or both of your shots - what are you metering - a bright
spot?

You know what, if you are underexposed, then maybe the 2nd shot is
already "halved" - 1/2 your first shot, then take your 2nd shot when
the meter suggests halving the shutter speed - then take the 2nd shot
unaltered - that should do it. What I mean by "...when the meter
suggests halving the shutter speed..." is make a note of what the
shutter speed was for the 1st shot, then keep checking until the 2nd
shot is reading twice that - that will be the point at which the light
in the scene has been halved.

It can be confusing. Imagine a scene where the shutter will be 1/2 sec.
For a double exposure you'll need to half both exposures - less light
for both so take each shot at 1/4 so that 1/4 +1/4 = 1/2.

But when one scene varies in light levels, the question is what
compensation is required to get the shot? What does everyone else in
here think? A 1/2 sec shot would turn into 2 1/4's, but would 1/2 & 1
sec shots turn into 1/4 & 1/2 or 1/4 & 1.0?

Jim

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:03:17 GMT, no_name
opined:

Several years ago Peterson's Photographic ran a series on the last page
of the magazine of "How To ..."; had a different photographer every
month who explained how he created the featured photograph.

One of the photos I remember was of a chemical plant all lit up at
night. It probably appeared in the early 90s.

The photographer used a double exposure technique, phtotographing with a
short exposure just after sunset while the sky was still fairly light,
and then exposing a longer exposure after full dark to get the
illumination from the lights.

What I remember was he suggested a "sunny 16" exposure 1/2 hour after
sunset (which is supposed to give you the blue sky & structure) and a
later exposure "sixteen times" the initial exposure (which is supposed
to fill in the night-time illumination - lights without burning out the
highlights).

Plugging in to ISO 100 film that gives 1/125 and 16/125 which I break
down to between 1/4 and 1/8 sec.

Except that it's not working. It ends up very underexposed ... It's
going to be very tedius to go out there night after night to experiment
to find the correct values, so I was hoping someone might be familiar
with this technique and can give me some info.

Possibly not the answer you were wanting, but I'd be tempted to
sandbag the hell out of my tripod, bracket a few sunset shots, then do
a longer bracket of night-time shots, then put the best ones togerther
in Photoshop.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:37:18 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
opined:

In photos for company reports I would not be surprised if the
photographer has placed HID luminaires to light up the
sides of tanks, possibly with some colored gels to liven things
up.

A similar trick with very long exposures (minutes or longer) is to use
an manual flashgun (unplugged) & few coloured gels, & flash the
structures a few times by hand. With a bit of practice it can look
impressive as hell.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Kernix" wrote in message
ups.com...


So shoot a roll till you have 4-8 shots left.

Everything you said was perfectly logical up to here.....How can you "shoot
a roll" doing the above? Taking the first exposure under daylight
conditions, then waiting for after dark conditions for your second exposure
will only work on one frame of your roll....Then it's wait till the next
night for your second try... I guess the best thing to do would be to donate
a spare camera to getting just this one shot....Get to the spot every
evening and work on that roll for 24 days, and take careful notes, so you
will know what you did for every shot.....

no_name wrote:

One of the photos I remember was of a chemical plant all lit up at
night. It probably appeared in the early 90s.

The photographer used a double exposure technique, phtotographing with a
short exposure just after sunset while the sky was still fairly light,
and then exposing a longer exposure after full dark to get the
illumination from the lights.

Plugging in to ISO 100 film that gives 1/125 and 16/125 which I break
down to between 1/4 and 1/8 sec.

Except that it's not working. It ends up very underexposed ...


I don't know where he got the 16x night time factor. You'll need MUCH
more light, even with a well lit structure. Try 5~10 sec at 5.6 for a
start.

For the twilight exposure, try metering on the sky and underexposing by
a stop or so (just a guess.)

-Greg