Last night I made a solargraph camera. It's basically just a pinhole camera that you leave for six months. I will find out on July 4th if it has worked.
Mine is currently on a windowsill. Not sure that's the best place for it, but was worried about putting it in a communal garden or in a random park. I have stuck eyes on it, so that it looks less like a dodgy device/bomb, and more like it was made by a child.
I think the light in the scanner is supposed to cause it to develop?
Heh, when out geocaching I see plenty of suspicious looking boxes hidden all over the place. Never seen one with googly eyes though... there's an idea for one!
Hmm, I think I was forgetting what 'develop' actually means in photographic terms, basically setting the negative in place so it can't be damaged by further exposure. I think I meant to ask why the scanner didn't cause the negative to get overexposed before it was developed...
(a) Leave it alone; (b) Place a useful 'Do not touch' notice on it; (c) Place a realistic model of a flying saucer or the starship Enterprise in the field of view; (d) Take careful measurements and place a photorealistic cardboard cutout of a long-demolished landmark in the field of view; (e) Take careful measurements and place a Teletubby doll in the field of view, so that it appears to be forty metres tall and ravaging the landscape, Godzilla-style?
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1109339--year-long-exposure-of-toronto-skyline-produces-dreamy-image saw this a couple of days ago, I think it's the best one I've seen.
I wonder if anyone has tried stop and fix on the paper to try and retain the image?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-05 09:26 am (UTC)Wouldn't the light in the scanner cause the negative to develop, though?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-05 09:31 am (UTC)I think the light in the scanner is supposed to cause it to develop?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-05 09:56 am (UTC)Hmm, I think I was forgetting what 'develop' actually means in photographic terms, basically setting the negative in place so it can't be damaged by further exposure. I think I meant to ask why the scanner didn't cause the negative to get overexposed before it was developed...
no subject
Date: 2012-01-05 12:52 pm (UTC)(a) Leave it alone;
(b) Place a useful 'Do not touch' notice on it;
(c) Place a realistic model of a flying saucer or the starship Enterprise in the field of view;
(d) Take careful measurements and place a photorealistic cardboard cutout of a long-demolished landmark in the field of view;
(e) Take careful measurements and place a Teletubby doll in the field of view, so that it appears to be forty metres tall and ravaging the landscape, Godzilla-style?
...Or something even stranger?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-05 02:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-05 11:09 pm (UTC)I wonder if anyone has tried stop and fix on the paper to try and retain the image?