# 6-month exposure



## stsinner (Jan 4, 2009)

With talk of overheating sensors with long exposures, I just thought I'd share this link I found that discusses a 6-month exposure..

Stunning photographs of landmark captured over six-month period - Telegraph


----------



## OldClicker (Jan 4, 2009)

stsinner said:


> With talk of overheating sensors with long exposures, I just thought I'd share this link I found that discusses a 6-month exposure..
> 
> Stunning photographs of landmark captured over six-month period - Telegraph


 
Your link goes to a search for "best attorneys in tampa florida".  Lawers may drag things out enough to require a 6 month exposure to get a pic, but I don't think that is what you were after. - TF


----------



## ATXshots (Jan 4, 2009)

brought me to the right place! Thats amazing!


----------



## stsinner (Jan 4, 2009)

OldClicker said:


> Your link goes to a search for "best attorneys in tampa florida".  Lawers may drag things out enough to require a 6 month exposure to get a pic, but I don't think that is what you were after. - TF



That's odd..  Does  this  work?


----------



## Enem178 (Jan 4, 2009)

Took me to the right place also. Very interesting!!!


----------



## chall33 (Jan 4, 2009)

that is so cool! thanks for sharing!


----------



## Kwak12r (Jan 4, 2009)

That is a really cool picture.
In regards of overheating a sensor, as the OP stated, this was done with film, and a coke can!!
Because it is film, there is no overheating of a sensor. regards


----------



## OldClicker (Jan 4, 2009)

They both get me there now???  Thanks - great story. - TF


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 4, 2009)

yea they used a pinhle camera and photo paper so no overheating. When I decide to trash my XSI I'll do a 6-moth exposure


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 4, 2009)

I find this amazing!
The photo as such as well as the story that goes with it!
Just amazing!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 4, 2009)

stsinner said:


> With talk of overheating sensors with long exposures, I just thought I'd share this link I found that discusses a 6-month exposure..
> 
> Stunning photographs of landmark captured over six-month period - Telegraph


 

Do you realize these were taken with a pinhole camera ?


----------



## elemental (Jan 4, 2009)

gsgary said:


> Do you realize these were taken with a pinhole camera ?



I think the key point here is that it was a pinhole _film _camera. There are plenty of pinhole digital setups out there. In fact, you could make a pinhole XSi pretty easily too (but good luck with six month exposures).


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2009)

I knew as soon as I saw "6 month exposure" that it was pinhole (is there any other way to do a six month exposure?).  Still a cool picture though.  The arcs that the sun makes are pretty cool.


----------



## TwoRails (Jan 4, 2009)

That's pretty cool.  I saw something similar where someone took a photo at the same spot for a whole year (every couple of weeks or so) and the sun made a figure-eight in the sky.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 4, 2009)

gsgary said:


> Do you realize these were taken with a pinhole camera ?



I guess in the future I can't expect people to get subtleties..  I was saying that this is an alternative to overheated sensors..  Maybe I gave too much credit..  Wow.


----------



## lockwood81 (Jan 4, 2009)

Very cool, thank you for sharing.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I guess in the future I can't expect people to get subtleties.. I was saying that this is an alternative to overheated sensors.. Maybe I gave too much credit.. Wow.


 
Well it's got nothing to do with sensors


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 5, 2009)

I think the OP understands the difference between a sensor and film.

Anyways, I think it is quite marvelous.  I wonder how many times he went past it hoping that nothing had gone out of place - imagine if a bird built a nest in front of it, or a wasp nest or something. Ack!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 5, 2009)

Peanuts said:


> I think the OP understands the difference between a sensor and film.
> 
> Anyways, I think it is quite marvelous. I wonder how many times he went past it hoping that nothing had gone out of place - imagine if a bird built a nest in front of it, or a wasp nest or something. Ack!


 

I read an article about this photographer, i think he placed about 10 or more


----------



## ShutterSpeed (Jan 5, 2009)

what? seriously, no one has C&C of this? j/k

we did pinhole cameras when i studied architecture.  it was one of the most exciting thing we ever did.  It seems like its really hard to screw up a photo when done with a pinhole camera.  

Apparently a student a few years before us had done a 8-12 hour exposure overnight of one of the prettier buildings on our campus.  Never got to see it, but heard it was amazing.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 5, 2009)

That's pretty amazing.  Image quality is weak, as to be expected... but a cool experiment.


----------



## Derek Zoolander (Jan 5, 2009)

so how does one do long exposures during the day without the picture being completely blown out? I tried to do like a 15 second exposure on something and it was completely white. Given it was during the day and I should've figured it would...

so what do i need to do?


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

I think this picture is excellent for teaching astronomy and how the Earth and Sun move..


----------



## DanCanon (Jan 5, 2009)

Derek Zoolander said:


> so how does one do long exposures during the day without the picture being completely blown out? I tried to do like a 15 second exposure on something and it was completely white. Given it was during the day and I should've figured it would...
> 
> so what do i need to do?


Its all about aperture


----------



## Derek Zoolander (Jan 5, 2009)

DanCanon said:


> Its all about aperture



I'm doing it at f1.8. But it's still blown out.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

Derek Zoolander said:


> I'm doing it at f1.8. But it's still blown out.



I think you have it backwards.  Me thinks you should be about f/32.....  f/1.8 is for dark scenes..  You want to set it at a higher stop so that the light soaks into the sensor slowly.  I think...  Higher numbers for longer shutter times.


----------



## Derek Zoolander (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> You should be about f/32.....  f/1.8 is for dark scenes..  You want to set it for dark scenes so that the light soaks into the sensor slowly.  I think...



im an idiot. you're good. i thought that you would want the aperture to be faster so it closes up faster. but then that contradicts getting a fast lens for better shots in low light. i have a lot to learn...so someone explain to me why the bigger the f-stop the less light comes through?


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

Derek Zoolander said:


> im an idiot. you're good. i thought that you would want the aperture to be faster so it closes up faster. but then that contradicts getting a fast lens for better shots in low light. i have a lot to learn...so someone explain to me why the bigger the f-stop the less light comes through?



The number can be remembered as how much of the lens is covered by the aperture blades-of course that's not what it means, but it's true.  At f/22 there's only a tiny hole for light to come through (bigger number, more coverage of the lens-22 of it is covered), hence "slow" aperture..  It would take a long time for light to fill the sensor through a small hole..  At f/1/8, only a small portion of the lens is covered by the aperture blades (only 1.8 of it is covered), resulting in a very large hole for light to come through, hence "fast".  Think of filling a bucket of water through your aperture hole-at f/22, very small hole, very slow filling of the bucket, but at f/1.8, very large hole and "fast" filling of the bucket..

Of course this is not what the numbers mean, but it holds true for remembering the inverse of the numbers compared to the hole size.


Watch this video.  

The video starts out with the lens at a low aperture, say, 1.4, and he closes it down to, say, f/22 and then opens it back up again..


----------



## Derek Zoolander (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> The number can be remembered as how much of the lens is covered by the aperture blades-of course that's not what it means, but it's true.  At f/22 there's only a tiny hole for light to come through, hence "slow" aperture..  It would take a long time for light to fill the sensor through a small hole..  At f/1/8, only a small portion of the lens is covered by the aperture blades, resulting in a very large hole for light to come through, hence "fast".  Think of filling a bucket of water through your aperture hole-at f/22, very small hole, very slow filling of the bucket, but at f/1.8, very large hole and "fast" filling of the bucket..



Nice, so how does that relate to depth of field then? you would think that a deep DOF would require more of the lens exposed (which means low F number), right? but that's not the case...


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

Derek Zoolander said:


> Nice, so how does that relate to depth of field then? you would think that a deep DOF would require more of the lens exposed (which means low F number), right? but that's not the case...



Think of it like this:

Everything in a shot wants to send its details to the camera once the shutter opens..  

Depth of field relies on how close or far away something is to the subject that your are focusing on, right?  And light does travel at a speed..  So with a 1.8 lens, you will use very fast shutter speeds, so you focus on something close to your camera, right?  Then you snap the shutter..  It's FAST-the sensor gets all the light it needs very quickly, so the things that are further away, or not optimally focused on don't have time to get their details to the sensor before the shutter closes, so they appear blurry..  With a higher aperture (slower, maybe f/22), you keep the shutter open longer because you're filling the sensor with light very slowly through a small hole, so everything in view has time to get its details to the sensor before the shutter closes.. Make sense?

I like to think simply.

Here's another helper:


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 5, 2009)

Derek Zoolander said:


> Nice, so how does that relate to depth of field then? you would think that a deep DOF would require more of the lens exposed (which means low F number), right? but that's not the case...



Keep in mind that this picture was taken with a pinhole camera, DOF is pretty much infinite - everything is in focus (but - it's pinhole, so nothing is sharp, lol).  There is no lens.  The aperture was probably something around f/360, but it would be impossible for us to know exactly what it was without seeing the camera (you would have to know the size of the hole, and the distance from the hole to the film).


----------



## gsgary (Jan 5, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Keep in mind that this picture was taken with a pinhole camera, DOF is pretty much infinite - everything is in focus (but - it's pinhole, so nothing is sharp, lol). There is no lens. The aperture was probably something around f/360, but it would be impossible for us to know exactly what it was without seeing the camera (you would have to know the size of the hole, and the distance from the hole to the film).


 
I will try and find the article i read about this photographer and see if it mentions those details


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 5, 2009)

gsgary said:


> I will try and find the article i read about this photographer and see if it mentions those details



The article linked to in the first post says that the aperture was 0.25mm (doesn't mention the focal length though).  The camera was an empty drink can, so the focal length could have been anywhere from approximately 120mm to 60mm - depending on where the film was.

At 120mm the aperture would be f/480, at 60mm it would be f/240.  So, it has to be somewhere between f/480 and f/240.

Edit
Just realized that depending on the construction of the camera the focal length could have been much shorter than 60mm...


----------



## gsgary (Jan 5, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> The article linked to in the first post says that the aperture was 0.25mm (doesn't mention the focal length though). The camera was an empty drink can, so the focal length could have been anywhere from approximately 120mm to 60mm - depending on where the film was.
> 
> At 120mm the aperture would be f/480, at 60mm it would be f/240. So, it has to be somewhere between f/480 and f/240.
> 
> ...


 

The article i read was in a pro mag a few months ago


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 8, 2009)

Hey, ST: What you're saying is that there's a whole world of photography out there that isn't digital. And that there's a lot of fun to be had doing it. Very cool idea the English gent had. Now, this is going to seem lightning fast compared to the six months, but I made this pinhole photo with about a 5 or 6 minute exposure on a cloudy rainy day. It's a kinetic sculpture (wind driven two blade propellor) by the artist Steve Rieman. My pinhole camera is an 8x10 4 3/4 inch focal length. 







If anyone would like to see the camera, go to this thread: 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...7-my-5x7-8x10-pinhole-cameras-plus-photo.html

And for lots of good info on pinhole photography -- check out the Pinhole Resource:

Welcome to the Pinhole Resource


----------



## stsinner (Jan 8, 2009)

Wow, Dick..  That's really interesting!  How long have you been doing pin hole cameras?


----------



## jwsciontc (Jan 8, 2009)

man that's incredible


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 8, 2009)

Thanks, guys, for the compliments! And to answer your question...

Back in 1993, I bought a 4x5 inch pinhole camera from the Pinhole Resource as a gift for a photographer friend of mine. He used it with a Polaroid back and immediately got cool stuff. Then, I was envious. So, I bought a 5x7 pinhole camera from the Pinhole Resource (had to be bigger, right? -- no actually, I wanted to make contact prints and I liked that size). 

In any case, I loved it, but the camera itself was plain and unattractive. So I showed it to my cabinet maker and asked if he'd build me nicer ones in 5x7 and 8x10. We sent away for the precise size pinholes for 4 3/4 inch focal length from a company that makes them (picture quality will be highest when the pinhole is the right size for the focal length). That was in 1994. He even came up with his own designs that were an improvement on the Resource cameras. Again, you can see them in my "show and tell" under "Alternatives" that I linked above. 

So, I guess I've been doing this for 15 years. But the pic above was made in 1996, so it's not like I'm a 15-year expert or anything. I tend to roam from antique cameras, to pinhole, to Holga, to 645, to my workhorse camera for street portraits, The Pentax 6x7. But I recommend everybody try pinhole -- it's really fun!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 8, 2009)

I have a pinhole body cap for the EOS mount.  I play around with it some, but not as much as I should...

The hole is .011"/.279mm, at 50mm (distance from the mount to the film plane) it's f/180.

I've played around with it just enough to know how to use it, I don't have any pictures worth sharing though...


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 9, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I guess in the future I can't expect people to get subtleties.. I was saying that this is an alternative to overheated sensors.. Maybe I gave too much credit.. Wow.


 
Yes, you give some of the people here too much credit.  Trust me, you have to explain everything to those who know nothing, but act as though they know everything.  

That's cool, it's like a word circle.

I think the photograph and the story about his father is truly amazing.

But thank you, thank you for posting something interesting and get people to think about photography more than just technical specifications.

-Nick


----------



## EhJsNe (Jan 10, 2009)

Peanuts said:


> I think the OP understands the difference between a sensor and film.
> 
> Anyways, I think it is quite marvelous. I wonder how many times he went past it hoping that nothing had gone out of place - imagine if a bird built a nest in front of it, or a wasp nest or something. Ack!


 

 This made me think....what are the odds that not a single bird flew across the shot.....


----------



## TwoRails (Jan 11, 2009)

There were hundreds of birds fly by I'd imagine, but they would not be captured with this setup.


----------



## tomhooper (Jan 11, 2009)

Absolutely fantastic.  Thank you for posting this. Makes me want to try something like that.  I will too.  Just not sure when.  Thanks again.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 11, 2009)

In physics we'll be making pinhole cameras so I might actually try it. Have to find a good place to hide it near the Brooklyn Bridge lol


----------



## christm (Jan 11, 2009)

I got a few photos from Bristol the other day (about 150 miles from me)

Click on the album - Bristol Winter 2008 My Photos


----------



## TwoRails (Jan 11, 2009)

christm said:


> I got a few photos from Bristol the other day (about 150 miles from me)
> 
> Click on the album - Bristol Winter 2008 My Photos


Just curious... but what's the connection to pin hole camera's and / or long exposures?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2009)

TwoRails said:


> Just curious... but what's the connection to pin hole camera's and / or long exposures?



Pinhole needs much longer than normal exposure times due to the extremely small apertures (f/180 and smaller).


----------



## TwoRails (Jan 11, 2009)

Thanks, but I know that   -- I was referring to christm's post.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2009)

Ahh...  I didn't click the link until just now.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 11, 2009)

christm said:


> I got a few photos from Bristol the other day (about 150 miles from me)
> 
> Click on the album - Bristol Winter 2008 My Photos


troll lol. So yea I can't wait till we make them in physics. if we do that is


----------



## patriciao82173 (Jan 30, 2009)

Did a google found more images here:
http://www.pinholephotography.org/Slowlight/Slow_Light.pdf


----------



## KmH (Jul 8, 2009)

I want to know what kind of film he used that didn't suffer reciprocity failure and could still record photons after being exposed for 6 months.

Did he paint the inside of the can black?


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jul 8, 2009)

I believe that "reciprocity failure" really only refers to exposure accuracy for shorter exposure times. For example, you can be accurate at 1 second exposure, but maybe not at 5 seconds. No need to worry about 6 months. If you're off by a few weeks, so what, but you'd need really slow film for that. And yes, the inside of the can would be painted "flat black." 

Pinhole Photography is a lot of fun. Here's a good resource for pinhole:
Welcome to the Pinhole Resource


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 8, 2009)

Wow. This is fascinating. Although I did make a pinhole camera when I was in art school (a long time ago ) I didn't realize there is so much interest in this. Thank you all for this great thread and links.

For anyone just wanting to give it a shot the cheap way, mine was made of a cardboard box sealed by black tape. The shutter was black tape punched with a sewing needle and the shutter cover was black tape also. The edges of the pinhole were not the sharpest but it worked.

Had to be loaded in the dark and re-sealed every time but for an exercise it was not a big deal. And it was fun.


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jul 8, 2009)

I too made a funky pinhole camera out of an 8x8 inch cardboard box, sprayed flat black inside and punched with a tiny nail for the pinhole, then covered by black tape. I loaded an 8x10 piece of sheet film in the back, just curved it against the back, then sealed everything up with black tape and went outside, pulled the shutter tape, and made a picture. It was like the birth of photography -- really funky but fun!
But soon enough I bought better pinhole cameras and even had a cabinet maker make a couple for me in 5x7 and 8x10 sizes. Here's a photo I got with my 3 inch focal length Leonardo 8x10 pinhole last February (you can buy this camera at Pinhole Resource -- I just added a filter holder, red filter, and lenscap for shutter). It's of the (busted out) North Shore Yacht Club at Salton Sea, CA -- this building was designed by the mid-century modern architect Albert Frey and is situated on the shore of an inland sea in the middle of the desert. The exposure time is 3.5 to 4 minutes at about 8 am and those are moving clouds on the left side. Clear sky on the right. The 3 inch focal length is "extreme wide angle" on 8x10 -- I'm standing about 15 feet from the building here (not the 50 it looks). 







Pinhole photography is a lot of fun. Exactly the opposite of all the tech advances in recent years. And you can get great photos! You can see detailed pictures of my cameras here: 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...7-my-5x7-8x10-pinhole-cameras-plus-photo.html

Have fun!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 8, 2009)

^^^^^^

I went through the thread about your cameras and the pinhole site both very interesting. Just offering a cheap way to try it out.

I will most probably build a pinhole camera in the near future as I am trying to think of different ways of using a darkroom with NO enlarger  and that is a very affordable way of doing 8x10 negs.

Just thought of a question for you (I am new to digital photo): the photos that you show, did you scan the print or the neg? Can you even turn a neg into a positive with photo software?


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jul 8, 2009)

Cloudwalker: I may have scanned a print or two, but I routinely scan negatives on my Epson Perfection V750 Pro scanner. This is a high quality flat bed scanner that does both reflective art and negatives. Epson provides various neg holders, and also a way to scan large format negatives via a wet scanning plate, but when I do 5x7 or 8x10 negatives I just put them face down on the glass platen of the scanner. Ordinarily, you scan emulsion side up in some kind of holder, because if you don't have a separation of neg surface and glass platen you'll get "newton rings" -- However, there is a way around this. You put the emulsion side of the negative face down on the glass platen, and you place a piece of anti-newton ring glass on top of the negative. This also has the benefit of keeping it totally flat. Don't ask me why this prevents newton rings, but it does. You can buy a piece of anti-newton ring glass in a size just slightly bigger than 8x10 from Better Scanning. They also sell improved neg holders for other sizes of negatives. I bought their neg holder for 2 1/4 (I shoot Pentax 6x7 film) and it's ten times better than the cheap plastic that Epson provides. So, the easy solution for 8x10 negs is emulsion side down on the scanner platen, and a piece of anti-newton ring glass on top of it. And when you scan the negative, you'll get the positive image automatically, or if not with your scanner, you can easily convert it in PhotoShop. Of course when scanning emulsion side down, the pic will be backwards, but that's easily remedied in PhotoShop by Image=Rotate Canvas=flip horizontal. Here's a link to Better Scanning 
Custom film holders for Agfa, Microtek, Canon and Epson film scanners.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 8, 2009)

^^^^

Thanks for the tutorial. Really appreciate this. This must be my lucky day 

So, of course, I have another question about scanning negs now. But I don't want to turn this thread into a scanning techniques one so, if you don't mind, I'll PM you. Unless you think it can be of interest to others and we may get away from the original subject. My problem has to do with glass negatives...


----------



## AlexColeman (Jul 8, 2009)

Talk about resurrecting a dead thread. How slow of a film must that be, 1 ASA?


----------



## TonyAlec (Jan 11, 2011)

Is there any other pinhole pictures with even longer exposures?


----------



## Infidel (Jan 11, 2011)

AlexColeman said:


> Talk about resurrecting a dead thread.


.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Jan 11, 2011)

stsinner said:


> With talk of overheating sensors with long exposures, I just thought I'd share this link I found that discusses a 6-month exposure..
> 
> Stunning photographs of landmark captured over six-month period - Telegraph



very cool. ive never heard of that type of art.


----------



## wezeli (Aug 17, 2011)

What do you think about a digital pinhole camera? Is it really  the same as the classic's  and are there people buying it?! 						​


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 17, 2011)

wezeli said:


> What do you think about a digital pinhole camera? Is it really the same as the classic's and are there people buying it?!​



Please don't resurrect a 2 year old thread to ask the same question you posed in your own thread just moments earlier. 

Please?

Like you did here http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...started-need-help-whole-developing-thing.html

and here http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-combining-old-hasselblat-pinhole-camera.html

And here http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...to-gallery/253869-digital-pinhole-camera.html


----------

