 |
photographic image fails History Channel tests
. . . in referece to the wikipedia text,
Photographic image production
To test the idea, the History Channel commissioned artist Stephen Berkman to see if a photographic process was possible in the 15th century. Could Leonardo da Vinci have created such an image with a camera obscura? The television documentary implied that Berkman succeeded. However, that he did not. And had he done so, it would certainly have failed minimum image criteria such as image chemistry and 3D terrain mapping.
An email from Sean Heckman, the associate producer of the show, disputes the show's claim. The email sent to Barrie Schwortz, a researcher who participated in the preparation of the documentary is quite clear. A large photograph was all but impossible. Writes Heckman:
Specifically, I take major issue with the misleading nature of our "camera obscura" segments. I personally worked with artist Stephen Berkman to design, construct, and test the theory that the Shroud was created by such a process. Stephen and I paid particular attention to building the camera and exposing the image with historical accuracy. We only used simple lenses that would have been available in the 13th century, as well as exposed and fixed the image with chemicals that are known to have existed at the time. Put simply, the experiment failed. While it is theoretically possible to expose an image, there are a countless number of variables that make the process nearly impossible, a multitude of which caused our project to fail. Namely, in order to make a life-sized image, you would need to position the linen at least 6 or more feet away from the lens. Since light fades away at an inverse square rate, a pinhole or simple lens only allows for an extremely faint amount of light to reach that distance, making it extremely difficult to expose the image. In our case, it took 43 days to get a faint image, which completely disappeared once the image was fixed. Considering this experiment was based on 200 years of KNOWN photographic technology, I find it difficult that such an image could have been created 600 years ago, particularly an image that we'd still be able to see today.
The disappearance of our image, once fixed, was completely cut out of our program. Similarly, we had several other theories, counter theories, and experiments that were modified over the course of the writing and editing, resulting in a program that strayed away from the scientific focus that I was told the show should take. In essence, the focus of our program was severely altered in the closing stages of our edit, and decisions were made between the network, as well as the production company, which went against my original intentions. It is unfortunate that the aired program took the direction that it did, and I can only hope that its participants understand how disappointed I was with the decisions made beyond my control.
Sean Heckman
It would have been interesting to test the History Channel’s image for all criteria. But there is no image to study.
Return to summary of why it is not a photograph
Why it is not a photographic image production
|
