Author Topic: Woven strips of film (Read 5824 times)

hookstrapped · « **on:** August 28, 2011, 05:19:42 PM »

This is interesting and pretty cool.

http://thisiscolossal.com/2011/08/seung-hoon-park/

How do you think he does this?

I'm thinking two exposures in a view camera, one with horizontal strips of 35mm and one with vertical strips of 35mm...

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2011, 05:36:10 PM »

It looks to me as if there are at least two separate exposures.

In this http://thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/park-22.jpg example.

There is a person with a blue shirt and his head & shoulders are displaced to his legs. Also the person next to him has no head.

Perhaps he takes one horizontal striped plate and a 2nd vertical striped plate and then merges the images together.

Who knows but the are certainly eye catching & different.

Mike

Francois · « **Reply #2 on:** August 28, 2011, 05:47:09 PM »

It was probably taken in two exposures on two frames of film.
Looking at the spacing between sprockets, I have the feeling this is not 35mm either...

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #3 on:** August 28, 2011, 05:47:58 PM »

fascinating..it would prolly be easier to figure out if one was seeing it in"person" ....looks intriquing!

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #4 on:** August 28, 2011, 05:48:35 PM »

I agree with Francois....

astrobeck · « **Reply #5 on:** August 28, 2011, 06:15:45 PM »

a couple of thoughts on this...
If I was going to torment myself with such a project, I would do it in two exposures, one with vertical strips and the second with horizontal strips then I would weave them and scan.

The headless and disjointed people in the frames are not that problematic as I doubt if everyone just posed and stood still for this...everyone was probably going about their own business not aware they were being photographed.

The other thought I had was perhaps it is an exclusive software of some type that will "weave" a single photo into such an intricate shot...faked in other words and not physically woven at all.

After seeing just one, it's sort of a cliche to look at..

Just loaded one in Photoshop and some of the film numbers on the strips say
9031, 9055, 9024, EJ72 2095,etc.

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #6 on:** August 28, 2011, 06:20:20 PM »

astrobeck..now that you mention the special software thing..somewhere in the deep recesses of my brain I seem to remember something like this..can't recall where but I am pretty sure that was it..when you look at the sprocket holes it kinda gives me the impression of a "created" image with a program of some sorts..

Francois · « **Reply #7 on:** August 28, 2011, 08:30:10 PM »

The sprockets are definitely not 35mm... nor are they 70mm... too far apart. All that's left is 126 and 110... I'm really doubtful. They're probably single layers printed on paper, woven and re-photographed. I noticed that it's not a transparent medium since you don't see what's going on under the overlaps (no double image). But it's most likely just done in Photoshop using the photomerge tool.

Alan · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2011, 09:30:17 PM »

it is certainly colossal indeed - i dont want to even begin
thinking how it was done - its kind of mind boggling - to me anyho.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:03:08 PM »

It would seem that it's fo' real:

In the suburbs of Seoul large real-estate compounds are flourishing everywhere. These large almost identical concrete buildings stretch as far as the eye can see. In his Textus Series, Park Seung Hun uses large pathworks of cut positive films that he assemble together to create a sensation of suffocation and constriction. "Writing a text, like weaving a fabric are an endless experience as both the text and the fabric can stretch infinitely. I’ve gotten the same feeling when walking in Seoul streets, which has grown into the second largest megalopolis in the world, it's population growing an astounding five times since the 60’s. My project called Textus shows the sprawling appearance and complexity of these cities. I use positive 16mm movie film that I cut and load in a large format camera. When processed the result is a mosaic of films, like a detailed patchwork that composes an inextricable labyrinth where the eye can get lost."

http://www.parisbeijingphotogallery.com/main/seunghoonparkworks.asp

Francois · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:59:36 PM »

Never thought of 16mm... so that's why the spacing of the sprockets is a bit odd!

Must be one heck of a job to assemble those in the darkroom...

Karl · « **Reply #11 on:** August 31, 2011, 07:58:33 PM »

"I use positive 16mm movie film that I cut and load in a large format camera. When processed the result is a mosaic of films, like a detailed patchwork that composes an inextricable labyrinth where the eye can get lost"

Just what I was thinking

gothamtomato · « **Reply #12 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:18:21 PM »

...but I don't understand why there is no overlap (ie; seeing double where the pieces overlap).

zzpza · « **Reply #13 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:39:41 PM »

Does 16mm have a really thick antihalation layer?

Francois · « **Reply #14 on:** September 01, 2011, 09:03:02 PM »

Quote from: gothamtomato on September 01, 2011, 07:18:21 PM

...but I don't understand why there is no overlap (ie; seeing double where the pieces overlap).

me neither... that's why I still think Photoshop...

zzpza · « **Reply #15 on:** September 01, 2011, 09:11:50 PM »

If the antihalation layer is thick, no light will reach the bottom negative, so no double image.

hookstrapped · « **Reply #16 on:** September 02, 2011, 12:53:19 AM »

I don't think he loads and exposes the film woven. I think he exposes once with horizontal strips and exposes a second time with vertical strips, then after developing weaves them together.

Francois · « **Reply #17 on:** September 02, 2011, 02:59:25 PM »

What I keep wondering about is why the background is black?
Shouldn't it be naturally white if it is backlit using positive film?
Also, if the image is woven, there should be an increased density where the film is doubled. Also the details should be mismatched inside those frames...

Something's afoot...

hookstrapped · « **Reply #18 on:** September 02, 2011, 03:10:49 PM »

Quote from: Francois on September 02, 2011, 02:59:25 PM

What I keep wondering about is why the background is black?
Shouldn't it be naturally white if it is backlit using positive film?
Also, if the image is woven, there should be an increased density where the film is doubled. Also the details should be mismatched inside those frames...

Something's afoot...

I'm saying that the film isn't doubled -- horizontal strips with no overlap, and a second exposure with vertical strips with no overlap, develop and then weave.

astrobeck · « **Reply #19 on:** September 02, 2011, 03:30:45 PM »

i still can't get the math to work out, but not knowing what size film holder he's using to lay the 16mm strips across....

If 16mm film is indeed .63 inches?

I counted the rows of film strips across and down and one of the photos is 24 x 29.
Multiplied by .63 equals roughly 15 x 18 inches...

Another photo is 15 x 12 films strips across and down, and multiplied by .63 equals 9 x 7 inches.

I'm still skeptical about this being real...
My math could be terribly off, and if it is I would really like some enlightenment.

as I just can't make it all work out proper.

Mojave · « **Reply #20 on:** September 02, 2011, 06:17:46 PM »

Those are fantastic!!! Holy smokes. I love them.

Francois · « **Reply #21 on:** September 02, 2011, 10:09:29 PM »

What bugs me a bit is when you look at things like the young woman with the brown coat in the center. If it was done in two exposures, you should see a ghost of her top half through the vertical strip... which you don't. But I know two exposures were used because too many of the architectural elements don't match... which they would have done if it was taken in one shot.

That means that the color in the emulsion had to be physically removed where each strip meets. But managing that before exposure would need a complex jig and possibly lots of frisket (a rubber compound used by airbrush artists) to prevent damaging the emulsion where the image is supposed to be.

Now if you leave it to the anti halation layer to block the light to the part of the image on the back, since we're talking positive film, this would automatically yield a black square which is hard to remove.

Unless: (insert supper time Wile E. Coyote lightbulb over head) he shoots multiple panels of weaved film at the same place and has the film cross processed. Then re-weave the films from different batches and scans the final result. This could explain the lack of increased density in the overlays (they're really negatives with a clear base), the lack of ghost images (there's nothing to see in the overlays), the black background (scanned image is then inverted) and the architectural details that don't line up!

What do you think of this one?

astrobeck · « **Reply #22 on:** September 03, 2011, 07:09:27 AM »

Francois-I think that is a reasonable explanation of how it could be done, but it's way too much work!

Part of my brain wants me to think there's a very simple solution, but then the other half insists it's photo shopped. I just need to stop looking at them.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #23 on:** September 03, 2011, 01:57:36 PM »

I think ... that if it were woven as a single frame prior to shooting and dev'ing the only aberations would be at the edges of each strip where they would inevitably curve. In the first shot, for example, the distant tower would appear absolutely normal with a mere line slicing it rather than half of it being displaced sideways. It would be a pretty dull shot.

The strips would also need to go past the edge of the frame and be gripped, no? Otherwise tension would pull it apart. But look also at the shot taken from a balcony or window. Centre bottom there's a woman taking a shot, but immediately below she's chimping it. Much easier to work on two shots, each in its own direction, and then process each as you please, and weave and trim them at will.

EDIT. Or maybe not. I give up.

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #24 on:** September 03, 2011, 10:06:33 PM »

along these lines..

Martin Wilson: Make Every Picture Count | Vignette
www.vignettemagazine.com

Francois · « **Reply #25 on:** September 03, 2011, 10:20:08 PM »

Quite a nice find Diane.
It reminds me a lot of the photographic works of Bill Vazan. Some of which were pretty complex to prepare (I have a book about them and they are quite impressive)

http://www.voxphoto.com/fd/artiste_select_en.php?artiste=157

LT · « **Reply #26 on:** September 04, 2011, 03:38:11 PM »

let's not forget the amazing work of my fellow Arenarian (?) Noel Myles www.noelmyles.co.uk who makes incredible P/P prints of single 35mm or 645 frames. I've seen a few in the flesh at our last meeting and they are truly amazing - all on a single sheet of sensitised paper - not single contacts cut out and then mounted together. Must take hours. Here's one of his amazing trees:

and a beach-scape:

lauraburlton · « **Reply #27 on:** September 10, 2011, 05:16:18 PM »

I did not read the whole article or comments, so forgive if this is repeated, but possibly he wove contact sheets? This would explain the background being black as well as there being no ghost images or black squares from double exposure....

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #28 on:** September 10, 2011, 05:37:59 PM »

Leon, those are amazing!

moominsean · « **Reply #29 on:** September 11, 2011, 06:37:17 AM »

I'm with the two different exposures theory. First all vertical shot, then all horizontal shot. Looks like they weren't even shot on the same day or same time, as skies are different in the vert and horiz layouts. May be a large pinhole camera...I've seen multiple strips done in this manner in a pinhole. And for some looks like he spliced the film in half. He probably does weave them but probably scans in sections and pieces together.