Printing With Light
April 28, 2010 9:00 AM   Subscribe

Laptopograms! Homemade prints made by pressing photosensitive paper onto a laptop screen and flashing an image. [via mefi projects]
posted by The Whelk (28 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Sorry, The Whelk, you couldn't have known but the guy responsible for this has been banned from mefi a number of times and only got as far as the original projects post because he snuck in using someone else's paypal. -- cortex



 
Neat!
posted by brundlefly at 9:03 AM on April 28, 2010


.
posted by Drasher at 9:11 AM on April 28, 2010


Maybe it's the Sexy Losers post that's doing this, but I fully expected images of "laptops."

It's still pretty neat anyway.
posted by heyho at 9:13 AM on April 28, 2010


This is cool.
posted by roll truck roll at 9:16 AM on April 28, 2010


My laptopogram came back with a fuzzy shadow on it. Tell me straight - AM I GOING TO DIE?
posted by Hardcore Poser at 9:19 AM on April 28, 2010 [2 favorites]


In seven days Steve Balmer is going to crawl out of your laptop screen and kill you.
posted by Babblesort at 9:24 AM on April 28, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hey, I was just gonna post this! I had no idea it was from Projects; a friend of a friend sent it to me.
posted by klangklangston at 9:24 AM on April 28, 2010


For some reason, I saw that as laptop pogroms, which I assume is when all the desktop computers rise up and wipe out their more mobile brethren.
posted by JaredSeth at 9:26 AM on April 28, 2010 [1 favorite]


klang, that has happened to me before. I got a website link from a friend, posted it on the blue, and then everyone went "oh cool I saw this when it was in Projects!"
and then I felt like a dope

This laptopopopogram thing is really cool, though.
posted by The Esteemed Doctor Bunsen Honeydew at 9:26 AM on April 28, 2010


Awesome, awesome idea. Like somebody mentioned in the projects thread this is an idea that just takes that spark of ingenious that doesn't often come. I would have never thought to do this.
posted by deacon_blues at 9:32 AM on April 28, 2010


So cool! I am definitely going to try this.
posted by JoanArkham at 9:42 AM on April 28, 2010


Can I just ask what the point of doing this is? I realize that there is a certain aesthetic to this (and maybe that is the point) but essentially you are creating a low resolution, noisy, grainy copy of an image you already have.

It's a clever idea, certainly, but is the result really all that great? You'd have more control shooting film or editing digitally...
posted by WinnipegDragon at 9:50 AM on April 28, 2010 [1 favorite]


Do this to the nth generation, and it becomes even more interesting.
posted by swift at 9:54 AM on April 28, 2010


This is really cool. Thanks!
posted by carter at 9:56 AM on April 28, 2010


I saw it in Projects and in Ask. Does that make me cooler?
posted by phunniemee at 10:21 AM on April 28, 2010


low resolution, noisy, grainy

Well, yeah. It's not about making a faithful reproduction. Why not just take a photo of some water lilies that are in focus, dammit?

The thing I love about playing in the darkroom is not knowing what, exactly, I'm going to wind up with. And no CTRL-Z.
posted by JoanArkham at 10:22 AM on April 28, 2010 [1 favorite]


So it's like a rayograph with a digital source that looks extra crappy?
posted by HumanComplex at 10:22 AM on April 28, 2010


Yes, I realize that these are kind of the inverse of a rayograph, but still.
posted by HumanComplex at 10:24 AM on April 28, 2010


Can I just ask what the point of doing this is? I realize that there is a certain aesthetic to this (and maybe that is the point) but essentially you are creating a low resolution, noisy, grainy copy of an image you already have.

Y'know, what's the point of even using recordable media? So far it's just been creating low resolution, noisy, grainy, 2D copies of a reality we already have.

Get your practicality out of my art.
posted by carsonb at 10:28 AM on April 28, 2010 [2 favorites]


Can I just ask what the point of doing this is?

Learning to deal with uncertainty and uncontrollable outcomes!

(No, really-- getting a Holga knockoff and a few rolls of $1.50-a-whack B&W Hungarian film that has an emulsion thicker than LA smog taught me a lot about creative anxiety and how to subvert it.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:41 AM on April 28, 2010 [3 favorites]


Oh neat. I've been experimenting for awhile with making black and white impressions from short video clips, so seeing vostok's process notes is quite helpful (and timely).

In response to the crabs upthread, I won't rehash my defense of instant film, which is similar, but to summarize:

light ➔ sensitive paper ➔ unique image ➔ fuckin' miracles

Also I suspect vostok, you know, enjoys the process.
posted by wreckingball at 10:46 AM on April 28, 2010


Y'know, what's the point of even using recordable media? So far it's just been creating low resolution, noisy, grainy, 2D copies of a reality we already have.

Get your practicality out of my art.


I'm not questioning the aesthetics of it, I'm just curious as to the value of the method.

The thing I love about playing in the darkroom is not knowing what, exactly, I'm going to wind up with. And no CTRL-Z.

Okay, *this* is what I am getting at. Thanks.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 10:48 AM on April 28, 2010


HumanComplex: "looks extra crappy"

says you
posted by idiopath at 10:55 AM on April 28, 2010


In a weird case of synchronicity, I was just reading the 1945 Vannevar Bush article on then-emerging technologies linked in another thread, and in it Bush basically describes / predicts the process you're using, except that he's thinking of it in conjunction with a CRT:
Use chemically treated film in place of the glowing [television] screen, allow the apparatus to transmit one picture only rather than a succession, and a rapid camera for dry photography results. The treated film needs to be far faster in action than present examples, but it probably could be. More serious is the objection that this scheme would involve putting the film inside a vacuum chamber, for electron beams behave normally only in such a rarefied environment. This difficulty could be avoided by allowing the electron beam to play on one side of a partition, and by pressing the film against the other side…
The only odd thing is that Bush seems to think that you'd want to have the electrons strike and activate the photosensitive dye directly, which would be difficult. The obvious solution of keeping the electon-sensitive phosphor coating on the inside of the tube, and then using a light-sensitive photographic film on the outside of the tube, he dismisses for some reason. (Maybe because it limits the resolution? If you skipped that step, you could get really high-resolution images; it would be limited only by the film grain, basically.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:14 AM on April 28, 2010


says you

oh, right, no personal opinions allowed here. Sorry!
posted by HumanComplex at 11:29 AM on April 28, 2010


Hello all. I made the laptopograms mentioned in this post.

I've turned rather introspective since my Projects Post; this being a result of a few images has made me withdraw unto myself. I hope I can express myself a bit better a little later. Ciao.
posted by vostok at 3:54 PM on April 28, 2010


When I first scanned the the first line of the FPP, I read, "Laptopogroms!" and I thought, "Now, this is going to be some crazy-ass speculative fiction."
posted by LMGM at 10:15 PM on April 28, 2010


Laptopograms, wtf? No, Screenscreens.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:48 AM on April 29, 2010


« Older Gendered use of social media   |   Every day, I draw on a 3x5 index card. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments