• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

How to make people disappear?

Stalin was also good in making people disappear from photographs too. He literally rewrote history by having people removed from important documents and photographs if they had fallen from grace.

(BTW: they didn't have Photoshop to do this back then)

And having a photograph from a loved one who disappeared was reason enough to disappear yourself ...
 

Attachments

  • leninx2.gif
    70.1 KB · Views: 425
  • leninx2.jpeg
    12.3 KB · Views: 284
ME Super said:
During the cold war, you could've sent them to East Germany or the Soviet Union. Now, you could send them to North Korea. They'd disappear there for sure.
Click to expand...

My father was in the 36th division and saw a man disappear in southern Italy near the Rapido during WWII. A bicycle messenger was riding hell-for-leather across a bridge and he literally disappeared - a German tank crew had potted him with their 88.
 
Here are the results from my first experiment, using a 6 stop ND filter. Sadly, my $100 filter is not enough to make the people disappear. A 10 stop filter would have worked I think, but I don't have $100 more to spend on filters.

This is an 8 second exposure using Neopan Acros.



This is a 16 second exposure, the most I could get with a six stop ND filter and using f/22.

 
Try some Pan-F if you can, as its a full stop slower. IDK if reciprocity failure kicks in by 30 seconds or not, but if it does you may be able to use that to your advantage to get even longer exposures. Acros is known for long exposure times before reciprocity failure kicks in. Also unlike reversal film, negative film (both color and black and white) have great latitude in the overexposure direction so you may be able to overexpose it and still get a usable negative. Seems to me your almost there, a change in film or technique using the latitude and/or reciprocity failure of the film to your advantage may get you the rest of the way there.
 

I agree, there are a few other things that I can do and get better results. The problem is if I want to try this in good daylight. I struggled to get to 16 seconds while the sky was overcast and it was late in the day. Mid day sun during a cloudless day will need a much more powerful ND filter.
 
Thanks for the answer, Dr Croubie. I think I understand your logic but I have no idea how I would arrive at the right level of ND filter to remove all traces of traffic on as busy a road as a U.K. motorway.

I'd have thought that there might be a relatively simple mathematical way to turn the correct % of road and cars into the traffic free scene based on speed and time each car is in shot etc but that's where I am lost

Based on Ratty's people scene I'd imagine the ND level to be very high even with overcast light and Pan F.

Ratty I have just had another thought. If the worst( lowest usable speed) of the current IR films has a speed of about 3 with the appropriate IR filter then on a dull day and adding even your current ND filter it might work. Might work for motorways as well, I suppose

pentaxuser
 
I have used a (now discontinued) B&W 113 filter (ND 4.0) for some tests with a 4x5 inch camera and forte & ilford film. I shot some pictures of busy streets and got different results, that were dependent of the speed of the cars passing.

Here's what I got:

Using a quite short exposure on a busy street with stagnant traffic



Using a very long exposure on the same street (you can still see the ghosts of cars, because the traffic was very slow)



using a long exposure on a busy highway (high speed traffic)



Using a long exposure on a small street, with some traffic that was moving along...



An then I went to the beach (a VERY busy beach) to see of the people would disappear... but some of them were really quite still...



The long exposure times used were between 1 and 10 minutes, I cannot recall exactly how long. If I find the notes I took back then, I will repost...
 
pentaxuser said:
Based on Ratty's people scene I'd imagine the ND level to be very high even with overcast light and Pan F.

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

My images taken at 16 seconds shutter speed are almost free of people. That was with a 6 stop ND filter. If I bought a 10 stop ND filter as I planned, then my shutter speeds would have been up to 4 mins long. An exposure of that length would have caused every last moving person/car to be eliminated from the scene.
 

Thanks for your response. I think in any "normal" scene involving people walking and the normal rate of traffic frequency you are right but I am less convinced about the U.K. motorway example I gave. The density of traffic these days on our motorways in normal hours i.e. not 3:00am is such that there might be an almost continuous line of vehicles in the frame which in effect becomes an almost stationary object and sufficiently stationary to show up on a negative.

I asked my question on theoretical grounds to see if there is any way to work out what is needed to eliminate all traces of traffic when it is continuous and heavy.

I remain sceptical whether such elimination is possible in my admittedly extreme example of traffic. It is a fascinating question

pentaxuser
 
Is this not a question more about frequency? If you have a 16 second exposure, would it not work better to have the shutter open with some black card in front of the lens and remove the card for increments of about 1 second 16 times over a period of about 5 minutes?
 
In a crowd an adult yelling, "I am going to throw uppppp [while making gross noises]!" will have the creadibilitly to clear the crowd.
 
Who's paying the check?
 

That's a pretty good answer!
 
I looked up the Pan-F data sheet here. It's not as good as Acros with regards to reciprocity failure, but in your situation of actually wanting long exposures, I think this will work to your advantage. If 15 seconds exposure got you a properly exposed negative with Acros 100, it would require 30 seconds with Pan-F just for the difference in ISO. According to Ilford's chart, 30 seconds exposure on Pan-F would require 150 seconds exposure (is that 150 additional, or 150 total?) If it's total exposure, then instead of exposing for 1/2 minute, you'd be exposing for 2 1/2 minutes. If you go for 35 seconds exposure, that jumps to 200 seconds (3 minutes 20 seconds). According to Ilford's datasheets, reciprocity failure for FP4+ and HP5+ is similar, and these films are faster so harder to get to that 15 or 30 second point for your metered exposure.

Disclaimer: I've not shot Pan-F at all, let alone under these conditions, just did a quick Google search and this is what I found. YMMV.
 
pentaxuser said:
I remain sceptical whether such elimination is possible in my admittedly extreme example of traffic. It is a fascinating question
pentaxuser
Click to expand...
I do know that people usually disappear in my pinhole photos, but often if a car drives by it leaves a streak because of shiny surfaces reflecting sun. I'd guess it might work better on a cloudy day ( but not so dark the headlights are on! )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register