Now open at the MIT Museum's new digs in Kendall Square:
https://mitmuseum.mit.edu/exhibition...ts-super-sight
Review from the Boston Globe:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-...ts/ar-AA1lrfdf
Further explanation of "Super Sight":
http://artjournal.collegeart.org/?p=8039
Cool,
Tin Can
This is awesome! I have a friend working on her MFA in Nebraska who is trying to build a "Super Sight" based on Abbott's writings and schematics.
Researchers hoping to recreate Abbott's Super Sight might better concentrate on simple traditional optics instead of fanciful speculation diverting progress from logic towards mere scandal and other entertainment. Probably thousands of today's photographers could easily replicate Abbott's images, especially if they treat it as a basic problem in photography without being lead astray by misinformation concerning Abbott.
An artist in such an (also) "technical" field, to have such passion, determination, and vision...who is driven through these qualities, as well as that of a deep belief and faith in the importance of what might be revealed (with no guarantees), to then invent and build that which does not yet exist...tailored to her pursuit and thus likely not completely conceivable by anyone but herself - is my hero!
As for others "easily replicating Abbot's images...(etc.)" - all of these others would be standing on the shoulders of the giant who made the great sacrifice to inspire the rest of us. And, to the extent that we are inspired...those of us who choose to "duplicate" what Abbott had achieved, would have absolutely no excuses, especially given the technology now available to us, to not take what she gave us and to move forward, both with and from it.
I looked at the Art Journal article and, as described there, the physics are purported to be basically a dual camera obscura with the second such aperture apparently receiving only the center of the image projected by the first.
Both apertures are exceedingly small, as in any camera obscura, on the order of f/100 or less, which has a maximum diffraction-limited resolution of about 15 lpm or so.
A second aperture seemingly sampling a small portion of the first projection and then spreading that sample across a 16x20 sheet of film would seem to be destined for an even further degradation due to a second round of diffraction limitation. That second aperture cannot add in detail and data not in the initial sampling.
As related by the art critic in Art Journal, the physics doesn't seem to work. Perhaps that's why they're writing for Art Journal rather than Physical Letters or Nature. <Pardon my snark, I couldn't resist. <GG)
Can anyone elucidate on the actual physical mechanism that worked for SuperSight? I wonder if any of it was ever disassembled and studied by other scientists who might have left some further insight?
Last edited by Joseph Kashi; 20-Jan-2024 at 14:40. Reason: Corrected two typos - yes, I'm OCD about that! <GG>
I also read the article and was skeptical about the arrangement described. I think it's likely that Hank O'Neal's recollection was incorrect and that there was a single camera obscura / projection camera. Some of the photographs shown are what I would call exquisitely lit close-up photographs, and it seems generally agreed they were projected onto large pieces of paper or film. As people who've done macro photography know, at high magnification you're always balancing limited depth of field vs diffraction, and there's no way to cheat diffraction with different lenses or whatever.
My guess is that Abbott had a subject chamber in which she could have great control of the lighting and background, and used a lens to project into a dark chamber where the large film or paper was set up, perhaps allowing a lot of flexibility in positioning the film. So like using camera movements, without actually wrestling a ULF camera (or having a reflection of the camera show up on the subject, which is often a hassle).
Yes, that is the obvious explanation. The label "Super Sight" may have been no more than a joke that was spread as fact.
I saw this show today, got a close look at the prints.
Lots of hype over... not much. No image quality breakthrough here, whatsoever. She could have done better with an ordinary 8x10 camera, and would have had the freedom to tackle many more kinds of subjects to boot, rather than using her contraption to project on to 16x20 film. The collateral artifacts in the show include praise from assorted worthies but also make clear that she couldn't talk Steichen into a solo show of this stuff at MOMA, though he allowed some pieces into a group show. They also reveal that talented as she was as a photographer, she was a bit of a crackpot as an inventor.
Her setup needed lots of light. Among the artifacts there's a January 1946 letter from Harold Edgerton, to whom she had inquired about the possibility of having him build a light for her. Pending a more precise specification, he guessed a cost of $5000, which per the BLS CPI calculator is about $85,000 in today's money - which, of course, she couldn't remotely afford.
Worth a stop if you're curious about this little bit of photographic history and happen to be in Boston anyway, not worth a trip.
Hi, OrenOriginally Posted by Oren Grad
Did the setup appear to be basically a camera oscura? If so, that would suggest the appearance of good DOF and hence apparent detail in the equivalent of a contact print. Was that your impression when viewing the images?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks