Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Gary Ferguson on January 04, 2012, 08:07:50 am
-
It isn't often that someone does something new and unique in photography
And this isn't one of them!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3496139/Stunning-photographs-of-landmark-captured-over-six-month-period.html
-
Hi,
It is always dangerous to use 'first', 'new', 'unique'. That said, the images by Michael Chrisman or those by Justin Quinnell are indeed quite new and unique, as perhaps would be those made by some school children trying their hand at pinhole photography with a bunch of cameras mounted for a month or a year in their school yard.
Edward Weston once said to a group of photographer friends at Point Lobos: "...go make your own scratch."
Jean-Michel
-
I wonder what the difference is if you compare scanning such an image with using a digital camera to photograph it.
Given that it will have neither high DR nor fine detail... thoughts?
-
I wonder what the difference is if you compare scanning such an image with using a digital camera to photograph it.
Given that it will have neither high DR nor fine detail... thoughts?
Hmm... I guess using a camera would also require exposure to light and thus change/destroy the original image?
-
OK, it isn't unique. Happy now?
Cheech. What a bunch of nit pickers.
Ever hear of "editorial license"?
The world would be a boring place without a bit of hyperbole now and then.
Michael
-
Hi,
Well, Michael, you were right in the first place. The image and the idea behind it -- I gather from the article that Michael Christman is doing quite a series of those images -- are new and unique. Just because someone else, somewhere else, has done something similar does not impact the uniqueness of the idea and the resulting work -- that was the reason for quoting Edward Weston.
And please keep editorializing!
Thanks,
Jean-Michel
-
Hmm... I guess using a camera would also require exposure to light and thus change/destroy the original image?
In the article, it specifically mentions that it is the bright light of the scanner that destroys the original image...
Given how long the paper gets exposed for for the low level of imprint, just how fatal would room (or even a dull room) light be?
Would the process where he moves the photo-sensitive paper require dark-room like conditions so as to avoid problems?
-
... Given how long the paper gets exposed for for the low level of imprint, just how fatal would room (or even a dull room) light be?...
We should take into account that the original exposure of one year was done through an extremely small pinhole, thus exposing it to a room light, should, in theory lead to a further degradation/destruction of the image. Using a dull room would require a longer exposure, so no help there either. Using flash, I assume, would have a similar effect as the scanner.
-
Now, at last, I truly see fairies dancing on the heads of pins!
Thank you for the vision, which will improve my cellpix immeasurably. I dedicate this thread to all masochist, everywhere.
Rob C
-
We should take into account that the original exposure of one year was done through an extremely small pinhole, thus exposing it to a room light, should, in theory lead to a further degradation/destruction of the image. Using a dull room would require a longer exposure, so no help there either. Using flash, I assume, would have a similar effect as the scanner.
Hmm, do you suppose spies use paper like this? "This image will self destruct in 10 seconds..."
-
Actually this is by far not the longest exposure taken - there is Michael Wesely:
http://www.itchyi.co.uk/thelatest/2010/7/20/the-longest-photographic-exposures-in-history.html
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2010/08/unusually-long-exposure-photographs-by.html
see also here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weIrazFpJ84
Greetings from Munich
Stefan