Light bulb

So, finally, there is some real question coming up about this smoke thing. When I first saw

this photo, and the one with the white smoke/black background, I really did wonder about

it. It did appear rather thick and cohesive to me and not exactly like anything I had seen

before. There have been a couple of suggestions that it was created-one by using a

program for such things and one by faking it organically.

 

For myself, I allowed it to exist as real upon looking at the behavior and nature of the

smoke inside the glass in some other shots, as well as my experience with smoke in other

situations-very different, but similar too. I also thought in terms of thermal downdraft--

Paal lives in a pretty cold climate, this appears to be rather thick heavy smoke, so could it

have been the result of a cold studio where the smoke rises, cools and falls, while the

hotter smoke pushes through the middle creating the rollover effect. Or would we really

expect the smoke to maintain such perfect cohesion, in any case? So, this is the end of

this POW and I think it would be interesting to hear some scientific opinions on this, or

maybe Paal would be willing to step out and give us some info.

I agree very much with Jaime that wrote above about our capacity of transsitional thinking, shifting from concrete to abstract. Most of what is said up till now is very near the concrete (what is it we see? how was it made? etc) and much less has been said on what Paal is trying to communicate. We are not very helped by the fact that the photo has no title.

 

What would have happened to this discussion if Paal in fact had been inspired by the so-called �mechanomorps� of Picabia and given this photo of a broken electric bulb a title like Picabia�s picture of a spark plug: � A young American girl in a state of nudity��.?

 

Paal help us, why did you do it ?

 

Don�t leave us in the dark !

 

Anders

Sorry, Paal will have to leave us in the dark.........,his lightbulb is broken! Ahh thats it. Finally

a hook we can all hang on to. Thanks Paal, Great shot!

I don't speak here as an expert on fluid dynamics (which I most definitely am not), but, as to whether smoke keeps rising or not, or in what pattern, the answer will surely depend on whether the fire keeps burning, right? Since we know that tungsten bursts into flame when suddenly exposed to air if it is at the temperature of a lit (glowing) light bulb, the question is what was the pattern of burning. It looks like there was an initial burst of burning in which most of the tungsten was oxidized, and thus the mushroom cloud--not as instantaneous a flash as a nuclear bomb, but reasonably quick. Even so, the tungsten continues to burn in the picture, and thus the continued updraft. Pieces of burning filament also appear to have fallen back into what remains of the bulb, and thus a couple of extra little streamers.

 

Just speculating here about things I really don't know anything about, but the point is this: I see no reason to think that the smoke was photoshopped in terms of its shape. As for color, contrast, etc., well, who knows?

 

Aesthetically, it still doesn't move me, and hasn't all week, unless it could (as I pointed out earlier) have some purpose as a book jacket for something broken and really down and dirty, like a novel about a very bad divorce, or a hot relationship that suddenly went very, very wrong. (Happens all the time, as when the twin monsters of jealousy and control invade paradise.) Then I might have to re-evaluate it aesthetically. Perhaps even aesthetic judgments are subject to teleological considerations. Aristotle thought so. On that view, however, we should have to ask, "What purpose or end does this picture serve?" before we could evaluate it aesthetically. Do we typically do that? Just an honest question. . . .

 

--Lannie

Several photographers seem to think this shot is an old hat variation. Perhaps it is. (I like it anyway.) But I am grateful to finally see how these smoke magic shots (not done in Photoshop) are done. Filement, eh? Neat.

As cool as this photo is... and it is very cool. I realy like some of the other ones better. Most of the stages one realy. or the ones that are in color and then inverses and then b@W and then negative. Defonitly cool stuff. Awesome subject and good interpertations. So still one question. HOW! do you just have the bulb hooked to an amplifier and just crank it till it cooks or what? HOW!!!!

Noah, if you just turned up the juice on an intact light bulb, the tungsten filament would melt in two, not burn. The light would have to be on and then the glass would have to be broken, so that oxygen could get to the glowing filament, which would then catch on fire--or so I presume, never having done it.

 

--Lannie

Noah, perhaps it would be safer to break the glass before turning the light on. Then, when the light is turned on, the filament would quickly heat up and then catch fire in the presence of oxygen--which was originally sealed out of the intact bulb.

 

I would imagine that, if the light switch were DEFINITELY OFF, then one could use a pair of pliers to shatter the bulb near the base.

 

Be careful of both getting shocked and getting cut.

 

--Lannie

An old adage says that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, it doesn't follow here. When I remarked last Monday about this photograph I stated that we needed words to explain the photograph.

I see that just about all of the later people's responses pertain to how this picture was made. That seems to be the real issue and interest here, and the photographer has not come through for us. Why? The picture still leaves me somewhat cold. Ah, well, a new week begins tomorrow. I look forward to the change.

I am made an impression with the precision of this photo. It answers me, please: how many light bulbs you used? An excellent shot! A fort I hug Aguinaldo Peter - Brazil

which the used equipment? e which to the technique?

So good idea.So good.

What a pleasant suprise , came home from holiday today

So sorry I have not been able to reply before now.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to write in on my photo.

 

The picture is taken " in studio " , home made set-up in my living-room.

I have used a flash on the background.

The background is not parrallel with the lightbulb so it is a little darker at the top.

 

To thoose of you who would like to try this yourself , here are a few tips :

Where you pierce the lightbulb it is best to use a little celotape on the glass.

This will stopp the glass from shattering and the element from tearing.

The way I have got the flame to linger , will remain a secret :-).

Technical info. 50mm 1/250 sek F/5 Iso400 flash.

It's is real

Captivating:

 

 

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.

 

Thomas A. Edison