Lit Up Kodak

[Frank Schmidt]

There's an unusual 'look' to this picture. All elements are quite clear in focus and the dynamic range is quite high. The glass has some reflection, as it should, but no blown out glare.

I'm sorry. This kind of picture can't be done with flashes and strobes no matter how expensive or high-tech. (If you think you can then please take one like it and show me so I can learn from your work.)

There is purple colored light on most but not all (green leaves and Kodak are clear not colored except lens). There are shadows due to light coming from camera left but also light coming from camera right on Kodak. But...no clear shadows on book and very clear shadows right foreground of photos.

This all gives the scene a 'painted' look. You have to do that by applying light in sequence with a spotlight over 51 seconds exposure time. Open the shutter in a dark room and go to work. After applying enough light, close the shutter and sign your name. f/22, ISO 125 !!

I'm happy to answer questions.
Get the new book from Haist Press, hundreds of great photos of old Kodaks. This is a 1926 1A Pocket Kodak Special .


See more of my work at: Frank Schmidt - Fine Art

[bhursey]

Originally Posted by Frank Schmidt

There's an unusual 'look' to this picture. All elements are quite clear in focus and the dynamic range is quite high. The glass has some reflection, as it should, but no blown out glare.

I'm sorry. This kind of picture can't be done with flashes and strobes no matter how expensive or high-tech. (If you think you can then please take one like it and show me so I can learn from your work.)

There is purple colored light on most but not all (green leaves and Kodak are clear not colored except lens). There are shadows due to light coming from camera left but also light coming from camera right on Kodak. But...no clear shadows on book and very clear shadows right foreground of photos.

This all gives the scene a 'painted' look. You have to do that by applying light in sequence with a spotlight over 51 seconds exposure time. Open the shutter in a dark room and go to work. After applying enough light, close the shutter and sign your name. f/22, ISO 125 !!

I'm happy to answer questions.
Get the new book from Haist Press, hundreds of great photos of old Kodaks. This is a 1926 1A Pocket Kodak Special .


See more of my work at: Frank Schmidt - Fine Art

So this is light painting. Nice job. The only other way I would think you could get the selective lit areas would be snoots or grids with gels. This is not the same thing but this was selective lighting with 2 flashes and 2 snoots one without a gell up top, and one from the side with a blue gel. Custom AR15 product shoot | Flickr - Photo Sharing! This is another example of using a grid. 1909-1915 No. 3A Folding Brownie Camera | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Frank Schmidt]

I looked at your two pictures linked above, Brian. Very well done ! I agree that they are similar. In effect you have light painted your subjects but over a very short exposure time.

The picture that I posted of the book is really a 'compressed video' ; that is , one frame with many images each one compressed over time onto the same sensor exposure so it all comes out in one finished picture.

Think of it like this: the camera computer collects all the images off the sensor while it is open (51 seconds) and adds them together. The problem is knowing how light will 'add up' for the finished picture.

This is really "indoor lightpainting" . Lots of people do it out doors. If you find anyone else doing this indoors; please send me a link so I can learn from them. I'm having to teach myself all this stuff day by day.

More at: FrankSchmidt | RedBubble

[OsmosisStudios]

Sorry Frank, but I really cant say that I like the image. There's something that looks like a flame coming from the glass item that is completely blown out, and your reflection is, in fact, blown out. You've also clipped the reds on the polaroid prints and the book. Why you chose pink is beyond me.

I dont knwo what this image is supposed to show. There's an old camera, and a book, and some prints, and some glass object, but damned if I know what youre trying to convey. You claim to be a "fine art" photographer, but there's seemingly no substance to it. I can't even say the image itself is visually appealing: it looks amateurish and muddied.

[Frank Schmidt]

Thanks for the comments, Adam.

I checked out your web site. Great work!

[bhursey]

Originally Posted by Frank Schmidt

I looked at your two pictures linked above, Brian. Very well done ! I agree that they are similar. In effect you have light painted your subjects but over a very short exposure time.

The picture that I posted of the book is really a 'compressed video' ; that is , one frame with many images each one compressed over time onto the same sensor exposure so it all comes out in one finished picture.

Think of it like this: the camera computer collects all the images off the sensor while it is open (51 seconds) and adds them together. The problem is knowing how light will 'add up' for the finished picture.

This is really "indoor lightpainting" . Lots of people do it out doors. If you find anyone else doing this indoors; please send me a link so I can learn from them. I'm having to teach myself all this stuff day by day.

More at: FrankSchmidt | RedBubble

Im confused by your post because you sound like your trying to say what your doing is unique. I fully understand how its done and this is not a new thing. I have actually done it many times similar to the way you did it. It is fun to do. I had a led flashlight with different color gels on it. I have also used my speed light in model light mode with gels. Its great to do when my wife is out of town and im board. I break out my teatherd laptop. Put it where I can see it. Remote trigger the camera for a 40+ second exposure and start painting. After the shutter closes I see what I have instantly and try again. Most of us understand fully how it works and have tried it.

Many people do inside light painting. It is nice because you can add the light as you need it without ambient light coming into play..

This is my favorite inside light painting example. It was a ad for Hennessy by Atton Conrad
Hennessy Campaign shot only with Light Painting (Long Version). - YouTube

http://attonconrad.com

I agree with Adam in I don't get what you are trying to show in your photo. There is way way to much going on and the colors really do not scream 1930s cameras.

[Frank Schmidt]

Now we’re getting somewhere, Brian !

“I fully understand how its done and this is not a new thing. I have actually done it many times similar to the way you did it. It is fun to do.” Please post pictures of what you’ve done so I can see and learn from you. (I looked at both your web sites and don’t see any lightpainting indoors : even the “ for fun” images: Collection: Things I do for fun.) I’m sure you’ve got some saved that you’d share.

Even better yet: “Most of us understand fully how it works and have tried it.” Who is “us” ? I’d like links to their posted pictures so I can study them. It would save me a lot of time learning from ‘most of us’ work. I thought this is what Digital Photography School was all about: showing our photos and explaining them. I’d like to see more work like this.

(Sorry if some people don’t like an image I’ve made: no accounting for taste. 4 elements in one photo may be too much for some people. The 5th one is just a flower to show that not all was gelled purple. It’s a camera, a book and some photos lit by an oil lamp. )
Thanks for the input. I’ve not studied all the images on your web sites but am learning as I go.
Frank Schmidt - Fine Art

[bhursey]

Originally Posted by Frank Schmidt

Now we’re getting somewhere, Brian !

“I fully understand how its done and this is not a new thing. I have actually done it many times similar to the way you did it. It is fun to do.” Please post pictures of what you’ve done so I can see and learn from you. (I looked at both your web sites and don’t see any lightpainting indoors : even the “ for fun” images: Collection: Things I do for fun.) I’m sure you’ve got some saved that you’d share.

Even better yet: “Most of us understand fully how it works and have tried it.” Who is “us” ? I’d like links to their posted pictures so I can study them. It would save me a lot of time learning from ‘most of us’ work. I thought this is what Digital Photography School was all about: showing our photos and explaining them. I’d like to see more work like this.

(Sorry if some people don’t like an image I’ve made: no accounting for taste. 4 elements in one photo may be too much for some people. The 5th one is just a flower to show that not all was gelled purple. It’s a camera, a book and some photos lit by an oil lamp. )
Thanks for the input. I’ve not studied all the images on your web sites but am learning as I go.
Frank Schmidt - Fine Art

Well my portfolio on my site is target more towards portraiture that is what I do professionally. I will look through my archives and see if I have anything last time I did this I believe it was in 2006. If I don't I will try and do one this weekend if time allows. I might light some of my older cameras following your lead.. I have a large set of Polaroid land cameras and other old cameras. Just got to figure out what mood im trying to convey. Sounds like it will be fun. I have not done it in years. How long have you been working on this type of photography? It definitely is a good start. I have mainly wanted to paint outside.. Like for example paint a car or something in a field with long exposure star trails in the back. There really is not one technique or another. Its all about trial and error. Mainly it is about having fun. My point about most is that its not a new theory and I have seen it many times on this forum.. It has been around since the days of film. If you search light painting on the forum you will see many examples on outside and inside.

[Frank Schmidt]

You may have seen this Monte Carlo image that I made, Brian. You're a smart guy and I know you can do better than this one. I got a couple of stars in it and my lame excuse for not getting more is that the owner of the car is losing his vision and did not want to drive at night out into the country to get away from lights.

We had grocery store sodium vapor lamps to camera right about 100 yards so they lit up the car too much.

I used a rechargeable Sears flourscent work lantern to light the side of the car like Chris [Nocturne] on Flickr does. Chris Benbow in England. Haven't done one like this is total darkness. Will try again some time.

Best of Luck !

[bhursey]

Frank,

Ok since I could not find one of my old pictures. I thought about what I wanted to convay in my new photo. Photography is all about light right? I wanted to show how in an abstract way a camera would gather light.. Sorta show the light flying into the cameras lens. I did this real quick during my lunch break while working at home. So it was not a elaborate setup and did not have to much time to play with it.. What I did during that 10 seconds was use an old flash light with the batteries way way to low. I then started the exposure and moved the light tward the camera. Then I stepped back out of frame and from above left I lit the camera with the same flashlight. I did about 6 shots slowly testing out my method in parts then I did it all in one.

Info:
Canon 20D
f18
10s exposure
100iso
Cheep FlashLight that needs new batteries.


Photography is all about Light. by Brian Hursey, on Flickr