Most complicated photo you have seen?

[Garbz]

Ok I am sure many of you have seen this photo plastered around the internet over the last few days:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0905/atlantisHST_2009may13_legault.jpg

This is Thierry Legault incredible photo of the Atlantis and Hubble transiting the sun.

More so incredible than the fact that this was shot on a DSLR + telescope is the timing for the photo. The transit itself was only visible from a 5km radius on the ground. On top of that the entire transit lasted only 0.8 seconds.

So here's a shot which requires serious planning, and timing, and I though what have you come up with that is well timed, BUT planned. Has anyone got an incredible photo that was no accident?

My probably biggest effort came with photographing a lightbulb that is currently burning it's filament (can't remember where i got the idea from but alas it is not original):

Pales in comparison but what has anyone else come up with?

 

[~Stella~]

So here's a shot which requires serious planning, and timing, and I though what have you come up with that is well timed, BUT planned. Has anyone got an incredible photo that was no accident?

I don't suppose wrangling a well-rested baby, getting it cleaned, fed, diapered, de-snotted, and dressed in photo session attire and then bribing and/or cajoling it to sit politely and smile at you while not fleeing the scene or gleefully ripping down your background counts? :er: And there's a time factor, of course; it all has to be done well before baby starts to need his or her next nap.

Probably not what you were asking, but the logistics sure tire me out!

 

[newrmdmike]

joel peter witkin PRINTS take some rediculous time etc

he only does a few a year and :

many of them require sets, dead people, deformed models, and then the print process.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Word, ~Stella~

 

[Torus34]

I should think that the photos showing the solar analemma during the course of a year would fall into the category of 'complicated'.

 

[bhop]

Probably this (awesome) photo of Salvador Dali by Philippe Halsman. This is before photoshop.. took around 26-28 takes apparently..

(found link by googling)
"Dali Atomicus" by Philippe Halsman - 1948 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

here's another I found with a little behind the scenes action.. sort of.. a little outside the frame anyway
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adissonante/2171532475/sizes/o/

 

[Garbz]

wow that cat must have been pretty pissed by the end of that :lmao:.

 

[Moe]

joel peter witkin PRINTS

Wow. Spooky. Interesting, but spooky.

 

[JerryPH]

Not much more creepier than some Diane Arbus stuff... lol

Me, I am a LOT simpler in my photography... gimme a good looking woman in front of my lens, and I will taker her picture...lol

 

[Mike_E]

The photo of the solar eclipse that proved Einstein's theory of relativity comes to mind but I don't have a link.

Several years, different continents, a camera yards long and pretty much the whole of physics riding on it.

 

[farmerj]

The photo of the solar eclipse that proved Einstein's theory of relativity comes to mind but I don't have a link.

Several years, different continents, a camera yards long and pretty much the whole of physics riding on it.

I found this Wiki Link
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/1919_eclipse_positive.jpg

Einstein QOD « Thought Fractals

 

[abraxas]

joel peter witkin PRINTS take some rediculous time etc

he only does a few a year and :

many of them require sets, dead people, deformed models, and then the print process.

:shock:

Joel-Peter Witkin

 

[KmH]

I should think that the photos showing the solar analemma during the course of a year would fall into the category of 'complicated'.

Nah. Pretty simple really. The first time I did it I was in 8th grade (1964).

 

[Garbz]

Nah. Pretty simple really. The first time I did it I was in 8th grade (1964).

Can't figure if you're being sarcastic or not. So how much time did it take to setup the shot, align it, take it repeatedly throughout the course of the year? Even if you just pointed your camera out the window for a year without moving it, you still had to take photos perfectly aligned throughout the year, or process painstakingly in a darkroom.

It may be easy if you have the patience and technical competence, but this would not be a simple photo by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[KmH]

Can't figure if you're being sarcastic or not. So how much time did it take to setup the shot, align it, take it repeatedly throughout the course of the year? Even if you just pointed your camera out the window for a year without moving it, you still had to take photos perfectly aligned throughout the year, or process painstakingly in a darkroom.

It may be easy if you have the patience and technical competence, but this would not be a simple photo by any stretch of the imagination.

A piece of scrap pipe jambed in the ground. I made a mount and clamped it to the pipe. The guy next door was an amature astromomer and explained the ecliptic to me so I figured out what part of the sky to aim the mount at and clamped the mount in place. It took about a week to set up.

Take a picture with the camera on the mount, a week later, same time of day, same camera, take another picture with the camera on the fixed mount. Rinse and repeat for a year, 52 images.

The local photofinishing store processed my film and made the print.