| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/28/2010 11:33:13 AM · #1 |
| //householdname.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/photographys-longest-exposure.html |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:35:28 AM · #2 |
| That is pretty damn cool. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:52:15 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:53:07 AM · #4 |
Thanks, Juliet -- I tried to fix the link and botched it! Haha.
Message edited by author 2010-04-28 11:53:23. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 12:50:41 PM · #5 |
Other than the inordinate amount of time that it took to access this site, there truly was nothing all that remarkable about the image. Yes the exposure was six months long, but the image is still blah...
Ray |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 01:32:23 PM · #6 |
| Is it possible to find out where he bought his batteries? :>) |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 01:38:37 PM · #7 |
It was done with a pinhole camera. That is pretty cool. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 01:41:02 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by sweetbread:
Is it possible to find out where he bought his batteries? :>) |
Did it with film ===> no batteries needed. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 01:45:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by ErikV:
Originally posted by sweetbread:
Is it possible to find out where he bought his batteries? :>) |
Did it with film ===> no batteries needed. |
This is imaged directly to paper -- there is no film. This is a one-off original, not unlike a Daguerrotype from the earliest days of photography. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 05:37:52 PM · #10 |
Actually quite interesting for a pinhole shot. :)
I like it anyway....lol. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 05:51:06 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 05:51:09 PM · #12 |
| How come it's not overexposed? I mean light entered the can every day but the bottom sun trails aren't overexposed. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 06:59:30 PM · #13 |
not overexposed... Partly because it it is exposed on photographic paper, which is much much slower than film, and that .25mm hole is pretty tiny too.
Here are a bunch more: solargraphy
|
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:10:54 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:33:11 PM · #15 |
| super cool. for all our tech, we couldn't do this with a digital camera...... |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:45:26 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by PixelKing:
super cool. for all our tech, we couldn't do this with a digital camera...... |
Sure you can, here's the results:
 |
|
|
|
04/29/2010 12:22:04 AM · #17 |
OMG Awesome.
Wait
I see messages.
Message edited by author 2010-04-29 00:23:21. |
|
|
|
04/29/2010 01:36:14 AM · #18 |
| Amazing! Holy cow, very interesting |
|
|
|
10/10/2010 09:20:17 PM · #19 |
It's nowhere near as long an exposure as what the OP posted, but the process is the same and I've been wanting to try this for a while...
|
|
|
|
10/11/2010 04:18:11 PM · #20 |
i sent the link for some friends on another forum, one of them replied that he doesn't know if the photographer himself made the claim about the photograph being the longest exposure, but it's not.
he then posted a link to here. |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 04:35:11 PM · #21 |
| thank you Amir. Now let us thread our ghostly way. |
|
|
|
10/16/2010 12:27:37 AM · #22 |
| Reminds me of a photo I saw a couple years ago at an exhibition from Christine Lebeck. She used a pinhole camera to capture an enter night's sleep. A link to her series: //wall-spacegallery.com/displayShow.php?showID=91 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/29/2025 11:21:43 AM EDT.
