6
   

6 Month Photographic Exposure

 
 
djjd62
 
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:38 am
The World’s Longest Exposures
Ransom Riggs - January 13, 2009 - 7:46 AM

My digital camera thinks a long exposure is a few seconds. Sometimes I get out my tripod and fool around with night photography " it’s amazing what a 30-second exposure can read in the dark that your eyes can’t! But 30 seconds " even 30 minutes " is nothing. British photographer Justin Quinnell is making waves with an amazing six month exposure he made in Bristol, England of the sun rising and falling over the city’s famous suspension bridge:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/clifton_solargraph_1118714c.jpg

He made the photo not with a fancy digital camera but with an extremely rude, homemade device " a pinhole camera made from an empty soda can with a .25mm hole punched in it and one sheet of photo paper inside. He strapped it to a telephone pole and left it there for six months, from December 19, 2007 to June 21, 2008. If those dates sound familiar (or astronomically significant), they are " they’re the winter and summer solstices, respectively.

The lowest arc in the photo is the sun’s trail on the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice. The highest arc is the summer solstice. The lines which are punctuated by dots represent overcast days when the sun penetrated the clouds only intermittently.

From the UK’s Telegraph, my favorite detail:
Mr Quinnell, a world-renowned pin-hole camera artist, of Falmouth, Cornwall, said the photograph took on a personal resonance after his father passed away on April 13 - halfway through the exposure. He says the picture allows him to pinpoint the exact location of the sun in the sky at the moment his father passed away.

A longer exposure is currently in the works, courtesy a San Francisco artist named Jonathan Keats: a 100-year exposure of a hotel room.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 1,546 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:41 am
here's the photographers web site

Pinhole Photography
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:58 am
Thanks. That's a fascinating picture/project.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 12:01 pm
Wow!
0 Replies
 
Izzie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 12:09 pm
@djjd62,
Heck.... that's a bit clever a?



<nasty nasty nasty 8 legged thingy in the bath tho.... ack...ack> Wink
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 12:14 pm
Love this quote from the website link:

"The Taj Mahal taken by a fat tourist with Diarrhoea and a point and shoot camera can be the flattest, dullest, "Here's us at the Taj Mahal, Oh lovely, lets go stick our thumbs up our arses" picture, but you can look at the most menial every day thing, and depending upon how your pinhole eats the light, its warped and peculier and imperfect. Its not reproduction, its storytelling."

So true!

Hmmm... Thinking about the smiley face camera for my diet. That would be interesting...
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 12:17 pm
here's the story about the 100 year picture

Gizmodo IMterview: Jonathon Keats
By johnb, 6:23 PM on Mon Aug 1 2005,

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/camera2lo.keats.jpg

Artist Jonathon Keats is taking one long photo. His project, a pinhole camera that is taking one continuous picture of a room in the Hotel des Arts in San Francisco, is a mixture of uber-low-tech and ultra-high concept geekiness. As a potential tourist to San Francisco who might want to stay in this room, I wanted to find out if Keats would see me naked.

Gizmodo: Describe your project. How did you get the impetus for this?

Keats: Oddly, it started out with quote from St. Augustine: "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know." When I first read this line a decade-and-a-half ago, I began to wonder whether the trouble he was having, echoed by countless other puzzled philosophers and theologians, was merely technological. More recently, I've started to speculate, more concretely, that the problem might be addressed with the right type of camera. Photography has revealed the workings of pulsars and DNA. If time is all around us, I saw no
reason why it couldn't also be captured on film.

Of course, we don't ordinarily see time on film, but that may simply be a signal-to-noise issue. It might be that the camera is recording so much else (for example, the three dimensions of space, all brightly-lit), that time is too subtle, relatively speaking, to be visible. If so, it seemed to me that the problem becomes one of isolating time on film by optimizing the camera to capture it.

So my project entails building various prototype cameras with which time might be photographed. The
hypothesis guiding the design of my first apparatus, which I've just installed at Hotel des Arts, is that time transpires very gradually, potentially over eons and eons, and that ordinary cameras don't record it because their exposure lengths are too short for sufficient time to accumulate on film. After several
inconclusive experiments involving cyanotype photography with day- and week-long exposures, I've increased my span by several orders of magnitude: My new camera, which I've built by hand from brass, will take a single continuous exposure of one hundred years duration. In order to be durable, I realized that the camera has to be simple. There are no moving parts, nor any toxic chemicals. The film is archivally-stable black paper, which will fade in the focused light of a pinhole projection over the next hundred years, producing a unique positive print.

G: What did you have to go through to get this into a motel room? Don't people value their privacy?

K: Actually, Hotel des Arts approached me. For the past year, the hotel has been giving rooms to artists to do with as they please, with the idea that anything an artist might do in a room would be more stimulating than four white walls. I'm not so sure. I like white walls. But, since I'm a conceptual artist by trade, I didn't think it wise to bring up that point.

So when John Doffing, who's been curating the project, asked if I'd take on a room, I readily accepted.
That's when I remembered that I don't know how to paint. But I'd been wanting to do some long-term
photography for a while, as I was saying before. About a year ago, I got in touch with the US scientific outpost in Antarctica about setting up a thousand-year camera there, but my proposal was summarily rejected.
(Apparently my research was deemed unserious " as if it were serious work making snow angels, or whatever it is they do.) The hotel, on the other hand, was promising a permanent space, no questions asked. And, since I live in San Francisco, it was easier to get to than Antarctica.

As for people and their privacy, I'm sure that some do value it. And in that sense, this camera is ideal.
Whereas an ordinary camera would take their picture in an instant, and perhaps put it on the internet within a minute, mine takes only 100-year-long exposures. So there's plenty of time to live down any embarrassment.


G: So this will be around for a few years. What happens if YOU die?

K: Without question, I will die. But Galileo also knew that he would die, and that didn't stop him from undertaking his research.

G: So this will be one exposure of 100 years? What happens if they move the furniture?

The furniture doesn't matter to me. There's nothing wrong with it, don't get me wrong. It's black,
fashionably innocuous. But if I were trying to photograph it, I would probably opt for a shorter
exposure with a higher-ASA film, say, 1/500 second with Tri-X Pan.

The important point is that time is everywhere. If it's under one bed, it will be under another. Like people, the decor is expendable.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 06:09 pm
The 100 year exposure seems a bit off to me. That means you would not be able to see the final result in your lifetime and maybe even not your children's lifetime! A 30 second exposure seems fine to me.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 06:11 pm
@NickFun,
yeah, i'm thinking the guys making some other point, he's been involved with some other controversial projects
0 Replies
 
candide
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 06:50 pm
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 07:37 pm
@djjd62,
not with a fancy digital camera?

Well, anyway, photographers have made some great shots with very long exposure (including our Dys, but that's another story).

I'm more interested in images than the extremes of tech, but still listening.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 07:51 pm
@ossobuco,
replies to self, I may be missing a clue re what digital can do versus a really good non dig camera - re time exposure.
Interested..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beautiful Animals - Discussion by Roberta
Aloha! - Question by boomerang
Photo lovers -- take a look at this.... - Question by boomerang
Michael Belk's modern Jesus photographs - Question by boomerang
LIGHTHOUSES OF THE WORLD. - Discussion by farmerman
Is taking his picture legal? - Question by aquestion
Amazing History Photos - Discussion by hopelessjoe
Poor travel pictures, well loved. - Discussion by ossobuco
Just a Photo - Discussion by Pitter
Knockout landscape photos - Discussion by ossobuco
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 6 Month Photographic Exposure
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 03:16:52