I would under expose the first of the two exposures so the sky does not blow out, and the image has a hint of shadow detail. I'd want the first exposure to still look like it is night. Then when it is completely black expose for the fireflies.
You'd be better off not changing apertures so everything registers. If the wind blows to blow the trees or grass, I think the blur would added to the feeling of night.
I'd capture one firefly, put him in a jar or something like that, take him home, put the jar in a dark room, photograph him in there (he'll probably be stationary or at least not moving around very quickly in the jar). After you've made a successful photograph (it obviously would help if you used a digital camera) release the firefly, then use the rubber stamp tool in Photoshop to make as many of them as you want.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Originally Posted by Brian Ellis
Hmm, I don't know. Of those pictures I've seen of Crewdson's and some other examples, it seems like each insect leaves a seperate and distinct trail. Each one is different. They're more streams than dots, since the bugs are moving. I would think cloning the exact same flash over and over again would seem quite artificial
I did a Google image search ("firefly insect"), and came up with a photo on someone's blog. Also, firefly in a jar.
Put some dust specks on your negative, and say they're fire flies. Who'll know the difference?
I actually shot some fireflies the other night (on 35 mm). Very little resemblance to dust on the negative; the fireflies (at least around here, North Carolina) are pretty much always in motion when they flash, so they show up as streaks, not specks, and the streaks are often curved or bent. And they're *bright*; they make a reasonably well exposed, slightly greenish streak at f/16, even when the bug moves two or three feet (starting 20-30 feet from the camera) during the flash; the resulting streak is about as bright as the light pool under a streetlight after a 1 minute exposure...
If a contact print at arm's length is too small to see, you need a bigger camera. :D
Donald, would you suggest f16 on bulb? What speed film? Tomorrow night I'm going to see an exhibit at a local library/museum that has the August National Geographic pictures on the Flinthills in Kansas and there is a firefly picture in that article. I believe it's the August issue. The photographer is local to the area and he's put together an exhibit with enlarged pictures. BTW: We call them lightning bugs here in Kansas.
I shot one and two minute exposures at f/16 on ISO 400 film, mostly because I recalled that as being a good exposure for street light illuminated night scenes. If you have a darker area (without street light) you might want to open up another stop or two (though doing so loses DOF); you're essentially going to record a black scene with the fireflies as streaks, anyway, unless there's a lit area in field, so use color film (that way you can at least pick out the light-cyan firefly light from the dust in the frame). And if you have film with better than average reciprocity characteristics (say, Velvia), you'll need to recalculate that exposure, which is correct for conventional B&W or color negative films that require 3 for 2 beyond one second (IOW, each stop of additional exposure time is triple, rather than double).
If a contact print at arm's length is too small to see, you need a bigger camera. :D
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks