Today I will do something NEW! I will post an image and NOT tell how it was done until Monday! One of the best exercises a photographer can do is to look at images and try to figure out how the image was done. I’m loving going though some old images these days. This image of MaryLyn is from 1984 and nothing is done to it since, except scanning it. All I will say today is that it is ZERO retouch involved, no Photoshop, not a double exposure 🙂 Please check back on Monday for the answer, and have a nice week end:-)
PS. Some of you with good memory might remember me telling it in seminars in the 90’s?Everybody else feel free to post your answers 🙂
PSS. Monday Dec.21, 2009. The answer to the trivia “How this image was made” is posted under the image:
So the day have come for the answer to this trivia. First of all I want to thank you all for the many great and clever suggestions, posted here, on FB, Twitter and in DM. I think my favorite suggestion has to be Alexandre Argy in Paris, France. He writes: My guess : “you have a very bad lab ! :-p” It’s a key to the answer in that comment as you will see as you keep reading.
To the image, Yes it is a sandwich of two slides, but that don’t answer how that partial, bent film strip pattern got in there. 3 images in a sandwich was a great guess. Image number 1( MaryLyn on on the bottom of the image) is taken outside on a hillside with the very last golden light of the day, a little blue sky behind on the top of the image. Shot on Ektachrome 100. Image number 2 was shot in the studio with white clothes on a white background and multiple tungsten spots. Shot on a Nikon F3 and with Ektachrome 160T film. So to the filmstrip mystery, my lab used to buy in the Ektachrome 160T in long rolls like 17 meters? and cut and load them in the length of 36 exposures. Somebody obviously must have let some light in at a point and that way we got some film edge exposed unto the shooting area of the roll for a few frames as in the white image. I was working at The Osmond Studios at the time, and was sure glad it happened on a personal shoot.
Well to an interesting part of the story, this image was never intended and planned, it was shot as two individual images, which I both liked on their own. A couple if years later I was standing at a light table in Norway to order some prints from several slides. Some how by coincidence this to shots ended on top of each other on the light table. WoooW, I liked it lots, took them out of the individual frames, put them on top of each other in a slide frame. ( Sorry, I don’t dare to take it apart and scan them individually to show you.)
Yes, a “coincidence” but how many great images haven’t come about because of coincidences and accidents? BUT it happened because I was doing something, that is an important part, not just thinking ” I should do something!’ Thank you all so much for responding, reading, being great friends and photographers, I sure enjoyed this and I’m already planning my next retro, trivia post. Have a great day everyone.