A probably silly question about night photography (1 Viewer)

[Mormon Nailer]

I just got a couple of rolls developed. there was a lot of night photography where I was just guessing at an exposure using B setting for the shutter and just bracketing exposures an hoping one of the few would be allright.

As a strategy is probably a bit spenthrift seeing as I have just developed 72 exposures and got about a half dozen decent shots.

Anyway I notice on the sky is only properly black on the shots that are properly exposed or a bit overexposed - on the ones that were underexposed the sky is actually a lighter colour - and also there is a fog over the print as a whole.

My quistion is: It that something to do with how they are developed - is the machine pushing things to try and brighten a dark print? Would they look different if I developed them myself (not that thats going to happen anytime soon!)

 

[Space]

I just got a couple of rolls developed. there was a lot of night photography where I was just guessing at an exposure using B setting for the shutter and just bracketing exposures an hoping one of the few would be allright.

As a strategy is probably a bit spenthrift seeing as I have just developed 72 exposures and got about a half dozen decent shots.

Anyway I notice on the sky is only properly black on the shots that are properly exposed or a bit overexposed - on the ones that were underexposed the sky is actually a lighter colour - and also there is a fog over the print as a whole.

My quistion is: It that something to do with how they are developed - is the machine pushing things to try and brighten a dark print? Would they look different if I developed them myself (not that thats going to happen anytime soon!)

Afaik it's more to do with the exposure at your end. It could be improved by increasing the density(ie darkening the picture) on the printing machine.

Undexposed shots tend to look cloudy or washed out like you described.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

I see, kind of counter intuitive isn't it - is there a scientific type of explanation

 

[Space]

I see, kind of counter intuitive isn't it - is there a scientific type of explanation

Here I think I may have confused myself. Let me have a think about it and get back to ya. Or maybe somebody who knows what they're talking about will explain.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

I see, kind of counter intuitive isn't it - is there a scientific type of explanation

i think the washed out look from certain shots is more than likely to do with the machine making the prints trying to compensate and get you an image of some description. Its hard to say without looking at the negative; fuck all on the negative; under exposed, resonable range of detail and tone; poperly exposed, to much on negative; over exposed.

this article talk about b/w film, but the priciple should be more or less the same;
http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-229809/photography

as a guide I always found shooting at 1/15 between f1.7 and 2.8 on iso400 film always more or less worked with normal street lighting. For iso200 use 1/8 sec.

 

[Goff]

It's probably got more to do with light pollution. The sky is rarely, if ever "black". The film (or sensor) will always pick up available light if you're going to shoot at long exposures, even if you can't actually see the light. And even if the light is miles in the distance.

If you try it with digital, a good rule of thumb is to try and take an exposure reading for whatever aperture you want at your highest ISO (usually 1600) then switch to your lowest ISO setting and stop it down by the amount of stops and that's how long you take it for. It's a quick way of doing it. If you're using ND filters, etc., you'll have to add in the extra stops based on how they're graded.

 

[magicbastarder]

i think the washed out look from certain shots is more than likely to do with the machine making the prints trying to compensate and get you an image of some description.

this sounds likely.

 

[Cleo]

It really does sound like a prob in the developing stage.
Do you think that maybe the darkness in the sky could be down to how you used your light meter?
Did you have a filter on for some of the shots and then some without?