# Light effects on film - crazy



## photophenatic

Wow! Any idea how to do this? Apparently it's captured directly to 35mm film without a camera. 

http://www.neublack.com/art-design/alan-jaras-light-photography/


----------



## MathTeacherGuy

I don't really know much besides the brief description given with the images.  If I was to try this, I think I would make a pinhole box camera.  I would cover the pinhole with a jewel, gem, crystal or piece of broken glass.  Over that I would make a shutter of foil.  I almost wrote "fail" there.  I would load the camera with some pretty slow film and experiment with how long to keep the shutter open vs. how much ambient light.  The source of the ambient light would be the next experimental factor after that.  It would be a pretty fun experiment.

Keep in mind, of course, that I started this note by saying I don't know what I'm talking about .  It would still be fun.

-MTG


----------



## christopher walrath

Looks like Tinkerbell after Tequila night.


----------



## reg

Yeah, whatever.

If he had released this before it was so easy to do on the computer, or at least revealed a bit behind it (I'd be fine even if a contact print of a roll of negs or something was posted), I'd be more likely to believe him.


----------



## Battou

I would imagine, This effect or similar to it can be achieved, in a dark room by placing or clipping the film on a flat, upright surface. Then take a translusent peice of glass or plastic and place it in front of the suspended film. Then turn on small lights (of varying colors from various locations maybe) for short intervals. 



My niece gets these little overly textured plastic craft things that she paints. With my knowledge of pearlessant automotive paint and one or two of those I think I could pull this off. I would just need an acceptable dark room.

*EDIT* Now that I go back and read the damn blurb I see I just reasaid what they said :x


----------



## christopher walrath

Or maybe in a darkroom they placed or clipped the film on a flat, upright surface. Then took a translusent peice of glass or plastic and place it in front of the suspended film. Then turned on small lights (of varying colors from various locations maybe) for short intervals.

(Sorry, man.  Sometimes I can be downright horrible)


----------



## Battou

christopher walrath said:


> Or maybe in a darkroom they placed or clipped the film on a flat, upright surface. Then took a translusent peice of glass or plastic and place it in front of the suspended film. Then turned on small lights (of varying colors from various locations maybe) for short intervals.



You are downright horrible dude.


----------



## Ejazzle

thats sick!


----------



## zandman

photogram perhaps?


----------



## Judge Sharpe

Not hard- put film in camera, take off lens, tape translucent plastic or glass over camers mount, snal slow exposure of moving colord light. It would work if you put translucent filter over lens, but it is nst necessary use colored filter to tint liught. process. 
The question is why waste the film?
Judge Sharpe


----------



## TwoRails

photophenatic said:


> Wow! Any idea how to do this? Apparently it's captured directly to 35mm film without a camera.





> A *photogram* is a photographic image made without a camera by placing objects directly onto the surface of a photo-sensitive material such as photographic paper and then exposing it to light. The result is a negative shadow image varying in tone, depending on the transparency of the objects used. Areas of the paper that have received no light appear white; those exposed through transparent or semi-transparent objects appear grey.[1]


 Taken from (and more reading at):

Photogram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Judge Sharpe

No one said it was a photogram- the opined that it might be. 
JS


----------



## TwoRails

Ah... the OP's link said it was a photogram, and the OP did ask how it was done, so the link to Wikipedia was related...


----------



## RMThompson

Judge Sharpe said:


> No one said it was a photogram- the opined that it might be.
> JS


 
?

It clearly said it WAS a photogram:



> The image is captured directly on to 35mm film, no camera lens is used (a photogram using film instead of photographic paper)


----------



## zandman

RMThompson said:


> ?
> 
> It clearly said it WAS a photogram:


 my bad, i didn't see it.


----------



## AlexColeman

Looks digital.


----------

