« Merry Christmas 2009! (Light sure makes a difference.) | Main | Flash bouncing off the snow, 1982. »

So HOW was this one done??? (Before Photoshop!)

Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 at 06:31PM by Registered Commenterkennethlinge in , , | Comments8 Comments

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.


Reader Comments (8)

My guess is some satanic technique you once picked up from leafing through one of Aleister Crowley's books... ;)

December 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJuan P. Ravneng

this is what we call a sandwich,two slides in the same frame

December 19, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterbjørn t stokke

or maybe three slide

December 19, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterbjørn t stokke

I agree with bjørn, a sandwich. But you didn't do the Micheal Orton deal and make one of them out of focus.

December 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterCorey

Kenneth says it's not a double exposure and refers to scanning "it" in. Also, the grass isn't visible on the lower image of MaryLyn. So I don't think it's a sandwich. However, the catch lights seems to be in different places, so they are in some way two images. By guess is the lower MaryLyn is in front of a picture of herself.

It's probably trickier than that though.

December 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterHarley Pebley

I've always been an admirer of Scott Mutter's work, because it's so conceptual and completely without Photoshop.

December 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterTim Uhl

My guess would also be in line with Harley, i.e. a projected slide image onto MaryLyn. But I think that the projected slide image is possibly a double (or a triple) exposure (hehe, trying to get around Kenneth's premise).
As I see it you have MaryLyn(1) at the 'lowest depth'. Then the straw and then the film strip. These three are projected onto MaryLyn(2). Thus, keeeping the premise of an 'untouched' photo.
Methinks I see a shadow of the projected image at MaryLyn(2)'s upper hair and neck. Can't wait till Monday :)

December 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJørgen Bjerkøe

Spennende. Ville tippet det var dobbel eksponering hvor filmen var trukket tilbake og tatt nytt bilde oppå det første. Eller kan bildet være fryst med blits (første portrett) og lang eksponering i tillegg (andre portrett). Uansett, imponerende laget på filmrull.

December 20, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSolveig

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>