Unfortunately, I have no idea what technique of photography this is, but it looks pretty darn cool anyway. Any photographer care to enlighten us? It’s pretty nice how there is over-exposure in certain parts of the photograph to highlight or accentuate those parts.
Loading ...Filed under: Daily Pictures
- 21 Comments |
- 6,631 views |
- |
- Subscribe
21 Responses to “Our Body”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...
I remember being negative once. She had said my penis was smaller than a Bic pen cap. I went ballistic and spray-painted her green. She died shortly thereafter of food poisoning and a staph infection. She really wasn’t all that good looking, but when you are equipped like me, you don’t have much of a selection.
Water chestnuts and fried beetles.
SoG
Son,
I guess it skips generations. Granddad of Guest was also hung like a beetle but Ive been cursed with the penis of a horse. This is part of why you’ve had several mothers over the years or sometimes several at a time. Its quite a challenge finding one who doesnt get injured so easily down there.
Flashlight speculum,
Guest
They’re just negatives aka reverse prints. Dark=light light=dark.
Not sure they are negatives- look more like infrared.
Infrared. That was my first impression.
The pictures are negatives. Copy & Paste one on GIMP and you can see it.
They’re not negatives.
If you know Lee Miller, she once used this technique.
And it’s called solarisation.
I don’t know the process. just the name.
yeah definately solarisation
the way they do is by taking the picture only half way through the developing proccess and then exposing it to a few seconds of light again AND THEN taking it through the whole developin process
Negatives, people
Gif Bin you’re only showing your ignorance by claiming something that’s not….
It is so obvious they are not negatives…solarisation.
as a matter of fact, roberto, all of the ones I’ve just opened are indeed negatives. Now, apologise for YOUR ignorance, and arrogance to the nice gif bin
open in photoshop and press cmd-i. There you have it. To complete the effect though, the photographer has lit the images from below to give the semblance that the ‘light’ in the negatives is coming from above, as our eyes and brain would expect.
black and white, but in the negative. i think.
pretty strange ideas
any of these effects can be produced in photoshop. definatly more impressive though if the photographer does it from actual film with no editing
dur is absolutely right. Not solarisation (this is another process) and not infrared (this is another film). A little wikipedia and google wont harm nobody. The worst part is when someone cannot do a little research and claim something to be true, when it just isn´t.
There are two ways to make pics like this. Solarisation is one of them. The other, for more hard-core photographers (not necessarily porn photographers:-) is to overexpose with a very harsh flash and then show the negative. That means that what would appear as too light or too dark in the negative would actually turn out as a midtone.
people solarisation will accomplish this process. that is, of course, when done with film not digitally….
Solarisation creates lines around contrast areas, which these haven’t. Also these look perfectly normal when viewed as negative.
Save an image, open in photoshop and invert it – you’ll see the original image. Its a simple monotone negative.