Latent Image
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
I was reading the wikipedia page on latent images, and saw that if you over expose film (they say 24 stops), it will form an image on the film without any processing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_image
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer redo Image-Specific Properties:
>>2768344
So, I put a sheet of 100 ISO film in the 4x5 & shot a 3 hour exposure during the middle of the day, and scanned the sheet of film (no processing), and got this.
>>2768344
With a little bit of levels adjustment I got this.
Anyone ever experimented with generating an image in this way?
>>2768344
I think what this guy does might be a little similar:
http://www.chrismccaw.com/SUNBURN/SUNBURN.html
>>2768396
Correct, no processing. Pulled the film out of the film holder, and put it directly onto the scanner. I did try to fix the image, but it did not seem to work. I will do more experimentation today.
You can do this with paper too
http://www.pinholephotography.org/Solargraph%20instructions%202.htm
>>2768373
Yeah but this guy uses paper
He just directly slides his print paper in his home made cameras for exposures as long as 24 hours, that's why they sometimes get caught on fire
He's awesome though, I reallly want to buy his book
>>2768420
Do you think I would damage a camera if I pointed it at the sun and did something like this? Just some random 4x5?
>>2770649
I don't think it would do much to a field camera
Maybe watch out for your lens, what kind of coating it has on it, or if it's made of some sort of radioactive glass, I heard there could be some kind of colour shifting/coating problems with that
But otherwise than that, and the fact that your enlarging paper can start smoking, I think it should be fine
Don't take my word for it though, he did make his cameras himself, one of them with a lens from a U3 plane, and there might be a reason other than just DIY
Would this work with color film?
>>2770664
It should work with color just fine, though I doubt it would be in color.
>>2768405
I would have thought you have to fix it, to prevent the image from changing further when it's exposed to light? If it wasn't fixed at all even in a darkened room wouldn't the light of the scanner kill whatever image had appeared?
>>2771584
>3 hour exposure
yeah, I'm sure 10 seconds in a scanner will completely ruin it
>>2768349
>Anyone ever experimented with generating an image in this way?
No, but I sure am interested in trying it with my Mamiya. Tho it may take some time to get through even half a roll :^)
>>2771682
Shoot a few shots & post em.
Just to give you a starting point, the image above is a 3 hour exposure at f/4.5 using Shanghai iso 100 film. I bet it would have been clearer with a longer exposure.
>>2771584
>>2771660
>>2771710
>“If I were to try to develop the paper in a traditional darkroom, the image would be lost,” said Chrisman.
>Instead, he uses a scanner to capture the image from the paper, and in doing so, destroys the paper image itself. “The bright light of the scanner slowly erases the image, inch by inch, as it captures it.”
>What took a year to make is gone in moments, but lives on in a digital form.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/01/01/yearlong_exposure_of_toronto_skyline_produces_dreamy_image.html
not quite the same thing, but super fucking cool
>>2771737
Damn, these are cool. I'll set out a pinhole in the backyard this weekend and let it do a week long exposure, and report back.
Just made a pair of paper negs, 1/2 hour exposure at f4.7. they came out pretty thin.
1/3
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:19 12:35:42 Image Created 2016:02:19 11:59:43 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2500 Brightness -2.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 758 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
capture one actually pulled a lot out of them
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:19 12:31:23 Image Created 2016:02:19 12:58:10 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2500 Brightness -1.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 839 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
3/3
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:19 12:30:31 Image Created 2016:02:19 12:58:37 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2500 Brightness -1.5 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 809 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2773049
Very interesting. It seems like paper might be just as good as film? I will do a side by side of film and paper in pinhole cameras tomorrow.
>>2773069
trying one for 3 hours right now, will post when it is ready
pretty cool op
>>2773076
well here it is from the paper neg
i know it is not the most interesting subject, it is literally out of my apartment window. only place I figured I could leave the camera that long
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:19 15:56:03 Image Created 2016:02:19 16:37:04 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2500 Brightness -3.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 809 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
and the positive
i do like how trees look over time
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:19 15:56:21 Image Created 2016:02:19 16:37:06 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2500 Brightness -3.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 803 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2773044
what paper are you using?
>>2773221
Kodak, looks like a semigloss or pearl. It was givin to me a while back with a bunch of other expired papers.
I left what I had thought was a spoiled 4x5 neg (came with the holder) on my coffee table for 3 weeks and it developed one of these.
>>2768344
literally no point in doing this
>>2773242
It's a way to create a pretty unique looking image (and you can use up old photo paper).
It gives you the ability to shoot ultra long exposures. Do you have an ND that will let you shoot a 3hr exposure in full sunlight?
I have an old Speedview 4x5 that's been sitting on my shelf for months. Don't want to bother with real film & developing.
Would something like like this photo paper work? If so, how would I do the exposure? I see it's rated ~6 to 10 ASA, but is that accurate if I'm using it for this purpose?
Assuming it works, would scanning or taking a picture of it be better? I have a decent flatbed, but I can imagine flipping the lights on and taking a picture would be considerably faster.
>>2773435
people directly expose photo paper in LF cameras all the time don't be a pussy
>>2773446
>>2773435
these are all chemistry free >>2773216
>>2773049
>>2773046
quickly photographed and inverted in photoshop. the neg is very thin doing it this way and not great. I tried it just as an experiment and something to do yesterday, it's interesting but I don't know how practical.
you can expose it and develop it normally using a10 - 25 iso rating. paper negs are nice because you can load the holders under a safe light and scan or make contact prints by placing the neg emulsion to emulsion under glass to keep it flat, then turn on the lights for a short time.
>interesting thread about alternative methods of taking images where people post their results.
>not a gear thread
>no one on /p/ really cares
lets see some interesting shit /p/
make this an alternative method thread
>>2774495
It's just a gimmick, though. The pics posted so far have "test shot" written all over them.
You can't make a snapshot good just by using some alternate method for producing it.
So all there's left is to discuss the method itself. Do you want everyone on the board to run out and shoot like this just because you never heard of it before? A few guys learnt something new from the thread and some of them tried it out for themselves. There's nothing else to say.
>>2774554
>technique that displays primary principle of photography
>just a gimmick
good job
>>2775652
What? Are you really missing the point of photography that ridiculously hard? Wow. I'm almost honored that I was here to witness it...
>>2775665
What is "the point" of photography?
>>2776030
To share moments, thoughts, and locations with people.
>>2776042
This is a very reasonable definition, thank you.
>>2776036
Have you contributed?
>>2776042
Do you feel that the snapshots in this thread were made to share moments or locations, though? Or do you, like me, feel that they just fired the shutter more or less randomly to "see if it works"?
Test shots are fine, I do plenty myself, but don't pretent it's actual photography.
It's like a violinist putting out an album of him practicing strokes and scales.
>>2776042
>To share moments, thoughts, and locations with people.
>having such a limited view of an art form
I feel sorry for you
>>2776136
>>2776338
the earliest snapshit
>>2776338
Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? That's literally a test shot to prove that a technique worked.
He didn't produce this and call it a piece of art.
>>2776136
>It's like a violinist putting out an album of him practicing strokes and scales.
This is just a discussion thread. It's more like amateur violinists getting together and discussing strokes and scales. There's nothing wrong with this.
This was enjoyable. Shot on a leftover Ilford matte fiber test strip. ~1 hr @ 5.6
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3032 Image Height 4095 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi Image Created 2016:02:25 16:08:54 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 758 Image Height 1024
>>2777822
That's true but it's not the argument he was making at all. Read back a little further.
>>2770664
I wonder what would happen if you tried this with slide film.
would it still look like a b&w negative?
>>2778519
There's only one way to find out anon.
