Lighting 'day for night' shots

Jonathan Spear · January 13, 2005

Hey,

I'm trying to get this shot on my SLR of a massive tree trunk in the middle of a thick forested area with a backdrop of a dark-blue night sky and stars. This shot seems almost impossible to shoot at night without heavy duty lighting equipment.

I was wondering if I could get a similar shot by shooting the tree trunk in broad daylight using the "day for night" technique?

What filters, stock speed and lighting techniques will create a believable and realistic nighttime effect?

Also, how would I matte the moon/stars to the finished product?

As always, any info will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Jon

Edited January 13, 2005 by TSM

January 13, 2005

Buy yourself a tungsten film to go with that blue tinted night sky you want- I haven't taken stills in a while, but I think there use to be a nice Fuji 100T still negative film that would be ideal for this. Perfect for this day for night scenario.

No need for any filters (unless you want a look)- shoot it clean on the tungsten stock.

Do you want a lot of depth assuming this is giving the illusion of being photographed with a slow shutter? Or are we making it look as though it's been done with stylised available light?

I think the stars could be done easiest today in photoshop- all of those tiny branches and what not will be hell to double print on the enlarger or double expose in camera. Just my opinion.

Jonathan Spear · January 13, 2005

Hey fstop,

Thanks for the info.

"Do you want a lot of depth assuming this is giving the illusion of being photographed with a slow shutter? Or are we making it look as though it's been done with stylised available light?"

I'm going for the former. It seems like that added depth will give me far more detail and 'vastness'. I'll probably be using a 12mm-15mm fisheye.

"No need for any filters (unless you want a look)- shoot it clean on the tungsten stock."

Would I need a ND filter to stop down the ambient lighting of the forest during daytime or will the tungsten balanced film take care of that problem on its own?

Thanks again,

Jon

January 13, 2005

Well, seeing as you are doing a still without any moving subjects, movement and not 24fps movie film you can do it as a long exposure anyway (and a long exposure IS afterall what you are simulating), it's not really a concern- so long as you expose for f.22 and use the required shutter to get that exposure you can then print down on the enlarger later or do it on photoshop. You don't need NDs as you have total control of the exposure with this kind of still work. Best to record as much info as possible, IMO, especially as you need that info to do the tricky matting of the starscape later.

Edited January 13, 2005 by fstop

Chris Keth · January 13, 2005

Well, seeing as you are doing a still without any moving subjects, movement and not 24fps movie film you can do it as a long exposure anyway (and a long exposure IS afterall what you are simulating), it's not really a concern- so long as you expose for f.22 and use the required shutter to get that exposure you can then print down on the enlarger later or do it on photoshop. You don't need NDs as you have total control of the exposure with this kind of still work. Best to record as much info as possible, IMO, especially as you need that info to do the tricky matting of the starscape later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ditto, since it's a still just do it with a long exposure. You might want to bring a flash or a flashlight to "paint" in some light on the tree to balance things out a little. Experiment.

Bob Hayes · January 13, 2005

Mr. Bunnies is right. If you are shooting stills all you need to do it lock the shutter open and use a hand held flash to paint the tree. You set exposure based on the flash and distance. For example your flash at 12? may say f4. So put you f-stop at f4 and always stand 12? from the subject. It is a really fun way to spend an evening especially with some photo interested friends. You may want to start you shoot while there is a bit of color in the sky so it will go blue in your time exposure.

Adam Frisch FSF · January 13, 2005

Cheat. Shoot two plates: one for the light for the background and one for the tree itself. Shake, bake and mix in Photoshop. Deliver to client. Enter into self-worshipping.

January 13, 2005

I'd be tempted to go with day for Night for the simple reason of exposing all of those braches up top- you don't want all the fall-off from the flash missing the branches at the top at night- go for more information!

Chris Keth · January 13, 2005

You could light the tree with a long exposure and still get those branches, though. Just do it with a spotlight and stand a ways away. That way you can get some light on the trunk (not too much) then shine through the branches. You could even do it in two exposures on the same negative if you wanted to light the different parts differently, or from different places, etc.

January 13, 2005

Very true. My ways quicker though. :P ;)

Phil Rhodes · January 13, 2005

Hi,

Obviously the problem with day for night is the sky, so those branches - which should be brighter than a black night sky - will appear brighter. I mention this only because I once did an odd thing with a still to DFN it - I made a luminance negative of it, and burned that image over the other one with Photoshop's layers tool, in places, so the dark branches against a lighter sky became black sky with branches.

You may find that your negative looks more convincingly nightish than the print!

Phil