Moonlight with Fuji T64

[M Valenti]

Has anyone figured out any reliable exposure times for the new fujifilm T64 under full moonlight? I'm trying to switch to this film since kodak's 160T has been canceled. I just tested it with 2.5 to 3.25 minutes at f3.5, and 5 to 6.5 minutes at f5.6, and they all came out quite underexposed. From everything I've read I thought this would be about right. I couldn't do a great deal more because the weather wasn't cooperating, but the best exposure I got was 18 minutes at f4 with a half moon. I hope I can get a better idea before the next full moon comes around.

[rippo]

have you checked this site?

http://mkaz.com/photo/tools/expcalc.html

it's not for the new T64, but it does offer 'old' T64 times.

a quick google indicates that a 'half moon' is also sometimes called a 'quarter moon'. at f/5.6, your exposure should have been over 2 hours with reciprocity factored in. i'm not sure how you're defining a half moon, but this calculator dispenses with that by using the number of days away from a full moon.

a full moon, btw, should be 4 mins 51 secs as base exposure at 5.6, but with reciprocity would be 11 mins 56 secs (for the old T64).

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Why would you use that film to capture daylight?

[rippo]

moonlight, not daylight. (i'm not the original poster btw)

some people prefer tungsten film over daylight film when shooting moonlit shots, because the inherent blue cast is more in keeping with how we imagine moonlit scenes to be. shooting a properly exposed shot by moonlight with daylight film can look, well, like a daylight shot.

people often shoot cityscapes at night for the same reason, to make it more blue and more in keeping with what our mind's eye sees.

oh and fuji tungsten film has less reciprocity failure than some of the other options out there.

[M Valenti]

Yes, I did use this exposure calculator to try and figure out the base exposures. From what I've read the new T64 is suppose to have hugely improved reciprocity and be closer to Provia 100F.

A half moon being call a quarter moon confuses things. I'm talking about 50% of a full moon, with the border of light and dark running straight down the center. In comparing the moon phases on the calculator to a moon calender, something seems suspect somewhere. So I just gave it my best guess.

Here's An example of the colors I'm going for, using the discontinued 160T:
http://mv.parodius.com/images/bm07/night/Untitled-15.jpg

[Sal Santamaura]

...some people prefer tungsten film over daylight film when shooting moonlit shots, because the inherent blue cast is more in keeping with how we imagine moonlit scenes to be. shooting a properly exposed shot by moonlight with daylight film can look, well, like a daylight shot...I'm not sure the moon exposed on T64 would resemble a daylight shot. The horrible yellow-green cast of this film might, however, result in an "interesting" color balance that could look a bit like green cheese. :)

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Kqm5

[Rory_5244]

Yuk!

[rippo]

i didn't say T64 would resemble daylight, i said "the inherent blue cast is more in keeping with how we imagine moonlit scenes to be." i.e. blue. not 'normal'. perhaps a greeny-yellow-blue (in your opinion! :) ), but certainly not 'daylight'.

blue...green...yellow...it's all the same....

[M Valenti]

My last reply seems delayed for the time being.

I'm not sure how much the green cast would apply to what I'm doing. I'm not seeing it yet. What I do notice is more variation in the colors and less monochrome. It almost looks like a normal scene. If you try this with Velvia 50, it has a powerful tendency toward green in my experience.

[Carsten Wolff]

.....that and the hopeless reciprocity factor of Velvia :)

[Zach In Israel]

Provia 100 has very good reciprocity and might do well for you here.

[M Valenti]

So I managed to get a clear night with a 100% full moon, and thought I'd share my results. I did a series of exposures from 2-18 minutes with a few types of film, all at f3.5. The results are pretty subjective and difficult to draw conclusions from. The exposure times with these films is longer than what I would have liked. I usually want to get good amount of work done in one night. I wonder how much the situation I was shooting in contributed to the results: mainly a lot of trees and grass with little sky in the frame. I think I'll give it another try to make sure, in a better situation than my back yard.

Provia 100F: It came out with an intense yellow cast. I wasn't expecting this and it makes me wonder if something managed to go wrong somewhere.

Fuji T64: I would say 6.5 minutes to get the look of a dimmer night scene and 10 minutes for something that looks like bright day light. The colors almost look like regular daylight film with blue showing up a bit in shadows areas, plants, and things that reflect colors of the sky. It looks similar to Provia's tendencies toward blue in regular shooting. Also the colors get a touch warmer with longer exposures.

Fuji T64 pushed 1 stop: It looks just a bit brighter but when it comes down to it I would give it the same exposure times as the regular T64. Over all the colors are a bit warmer. As the exposure times get longer the colors very clearly become warmer, with the longer times looking like standard daylight film. I did do one 60 minute exposure and colors looked shifted and unnatural, but nothing as bad as the results I got with Provia.

Kodak 64T: The results are a small amount darker than the Fuji T64. I would give it 8 minutes for a night scene and 13 minutes for the look of daylight. There is a more visible blue cast which is closer to what I've been looking for. It also seems that there's less difference between between each exposure, so maybe there more exposure latitude.