[victormeldrew]

I recently got a book 'Images of the Seventh Day' by Michael Kenna. Highly recommended, by the way.
I'm particularly interested in his minimal black and white landscapes and it's similar to the kind of look I strive for myself.
Looking through, I saw the image below, "Log and Plane, Florida USA, 1992" and I was intrigued as to how he might have achieved it.
Being 1992, I'd doubt much digital PP was involved. But other than that I'm quite clueless.

Just as an intellectual exercise, if you feel like an educated-guessing game, I would love to hear your ideas.

[LensBeginner]

1. Nighttime
2. Long exposure. Probably no need for an ND, since it's dark.
3. Some form of illumination of the foreground. Maybe light painting with a torch, but from the opposite side of the log, as it is in the shadow?

Not as straightforward as it might seem at first, I think.
Still missing the blips that strobe lights do on an airplane... would have expected something like --°--°--°--°---
For it to be a negative in daylight, there's still something that doesn't add up, so I'd vote for nighttime.

[victormeldrew]

Yes, definitely a long exposure...you can see some rope or chain attached to the nearside of the log, wafting about. So maybe the light area is just breaking waves catching light.
But yes, the light trail of the plane doesn't add up...the only continuous light would be a landing light, but that would be at the front, whereas this seems to be moving away (and not landing!).
So maybe it is catching sunlight...so daytime with some kind of filter...or maybe IR?

[ismaelg]

I think that is most likely an approaching aircraft. The long exposure started when it was already in the frame. At the end it turned left (image right) so the light was less intense. At the middle, the light looks more intense so it may be head on...
That's one of those mesmerizing images that you go like "Why do I like it so much?"

Thanks,

[victormeldrew]

That's one of those mesmerizing images that you go like "Why do I like it so much?"

So much of his work is like that. Extremely minimal, but very compelling viewing. In this case some would say the shape of the aircraft trail mirroring the angle of the log and water...use of negative space...so forth. Unless he researched or spotted this situation previously, it must be a happy accident, but it's a peach.

Save

[LensBeginner]

I think that is most likely an approaching aircraft. The long exposure started when it was already in the frame. At the end it turned left (image right) so the light was less intense. At the middle, the light looks more intense so it may be head on...
That's one of those mesmerizing images that you go like "Why do I like it so much?"

Thanks,

Sounds more plausible to me...
But "approaching" as in "coming towards", because if the path is as you said, it looks a departure to me, and not an approach.

@victormeldrew, good eye catching the rope, the light might be a light from a dock/pier/whatever, after all...

[victormeldrew]

the light might be a light from a dock/pier/whatever, after all...

Or maybe just foam catching sun/moon light more than the still water behind? The darkness at the bottom edge could then be explained by the shore...otherwise that would be lit too...

[LensBeginner]

Or maybe just foam catching sun/moon light more than the still water behind? The darkness at the bottom edge could then be explained by the shore...otherwise that would be lit too...

Could be.
However the bottom could also have been in darkness if the light beam was quite narrow, and coming from camera left.

[photoptimist]

1. The bright line is definitely a aircraft taking off and the turning toward the camera. If you play with the histogram, you can actually see the pulses of the navigation lights under the brighter headlights.

2. The log has a chain that arcs through a fan of angles as the sea rushes in and out (wind would not create as smooth a fan of angles). What looks like a shadow of the log is actually the lee of the log where the water rushes up the beach on both sides (if it were a shadow, it would be progressively darker near the log but it doesn't). There's also a faint bright ring around the base of the log where the in-and-out waves form a wake.

3. The bright patch is not a specifically lit area but a long-exposure of the line of breakers a beach. With a long enough exposure, the sea foam and bright spray blends together into a blurry patch.

4. The lighting is fairly diffuse. There's a faint shadow of the log to the right so maybe there's a crescent/half moon to the left.

[victormeldrew]

Sounds very likely, so would be a night-time long exposure of a few minutes judging by the length of the aircraft tail and smoothness of the breakers.

However, to me the sky seems very dark, no hint of light at all. How can that be? On a clear night, there would be stars...assuming it is overcast, there would be no moon shadow and I would expect the clouds to be at least slightly illuminated. To me it looks like a clear blue sky rendered black. Easily done in post, but I would guess an orange filter would do this?

[Not a Number]

Aircraft = contrail?

[photoptimist]

Sounds very likely, so would be a night-time long exposure of a few minutes judging by the length of the aircraft tail and smoothness of the breakers.

However, to me the sky seems very dark, no hint of light at all. How can that be? On a clear night, there would be stars...assuming it is overcast, there would be no moon shadow and I would expect the clouds to be at least slightly illuminated. To me it looks like a clear blue sky rendered black. Easily done in post, but I would guess an orange filter would do this?

Good question. Those aircraft lights can be extremely bright -- much brighter than any star. The overall frame feels like it was done with a modest WA (maybe 28-35 mm equivalent???) so the stars would be pretty small and Florida's humid atmosphere isn't that conducive to seeing them.

The shadow of the log (just to the right) is pretty indistinct. That's why I hypothesized it was a crescent or half moon and then a bit of high haze. Film reciprocity issues or subsequent manipulation of the contrast during printing could push the stars or ambient lit haze into blackness. Note that one can also see the distant shoreline of what it probably mainland Florida where the airport would be located.

It's also interesting that Kenna started the exposure when he did (assuming he did not mask off the beginning of the takeoff). That short segment before the turn is compositionally effective -- better than starting the image before the plane comes into the frame. He either knew from watching when the aircraft were likely to turn or took lots of similar images that were discarded if the plane went the wrong direction.

[UncleVanya]

Could this be a composite of two shots?

[LensBeginner]

Aircraft = contrail?

Aircraft = lights
That seems to be the consensus.

[SuperSyx]

This is definitely a great discussion. I have no experience on the matter but reading the hypothesis makes me want to try something similar.