4 ms·

The photo was taken 10 years after the initial meltdown and photographer is alive. When the meltdown first happened, anyone that close would be dead under 2 min

The photo was taken 10 years after the initial meltdown and photographer is alive. When the meltdown first happened, anyone that close would be dead under 2 minutes. The radiation figures are in the article. If were to take a 10 second photo, 4 seconds in one spot, 1 second moving and another 5 seconds in another spot I wouldn't be a full blur. The part of me moving only accounts for 1/10 of the entire exposure and the places where I stood still would be much brighter. I can exaggerate this by turning off my flash light when I was moving.

Alupis 11y ago
This article[1] seems to believe it was multiple workers who took this photograph (and this source is a bit more credible imho), and notes it's still deadly to be in close proximity for more than 2 minutes. Your explanation still doesn't explain the lack of motion blur walking over to the spot, although we see the flashlight(s) blur. There also appears to be two distinct flashlight blurs. [1] http://nautil.us/blog/chernobyls-hot-mess-the-elephants-foot-is-still-lethal http://nautil.us/blog/chernobyls-hot-mess-the-elephants-foot...
- foobarrio 11y ago
  You're right in that we don't know how the photo was taken but a long photo exposure doesn't necessarily mean you will see his trail. My explanation still stands a pure guess of how that photo could have been taken. Let me explain more: There is only so much range a piece of film can achieve. I don't know how much you know about photos but exposure and light are usually discussed on a log(base 2) scale. Each exposure "unit" called a "stop" equates to doubling or halving the amount of light. So a 4 second exposure is 1 stop darker than an 8s one because it lets in half the light. Assuming there are no other light sources we can assume the entirety of the exposure came from the flash light. There is a shadow behind and above the elephants foot which tells us the elephants foot was illuminated by a light below the camera. Assuming the guy had the camera at almost eye level, shines the flashlight at waste level could produce this kind of shadow. Now let's say the guy turns the flashlight off walks over to where he is in the photo and starts moving the flash light more, shift position and does it again. You will not see him walk to the spot in the photo even if the room was not completely dark. If he took a 60 second photo, he set the exposure for 30ish seconds of light from flash light and not from ambient light. This means the ambient light reflecting off the guy while he walked probably exposed a trail that is over 10 stops below what the light from the flash light did. In good conditions your average color negative film has about 7 stops of dynamic range or +3 from middle tones before turning completely white and -3 from going to complete black. It's not hard to set up a photo where you don't register because you're trail exposes below the range of the film. Many people do these kinds of photos and they are called "lightpainting". This is very commonly done in landscapes where certain features of landscapes like trees and rocks are painted. You don't see the people walking around because they turn their lights off when they do it. They do produce walking smears but they account for such a small proportion of the overall exposure they don't show up in the final photo. I believe this what these guys do and notice no people in their photos: http://www.lightmark.de/overview.html http://www.lightmark.de/overview.html However they might compositing images. Here is another example: http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/554997063-glowing-digital-map-location-symbol-at-night-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=7GmQGnKe6mGnNVLN1Vaiob%2BFgmKQs1UrpNbf8CnBmE8R98SQJSyh0NBjtvOdvTtyJtz63aGFNIhRvOYPknpBsw%3D%3D http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/554997063-glowing-digital-m... I've personally done photos like that in a single long exposure. I'm sure the photos I linked have lots of photoshop to get them perfect to get them perfect the principal stands. I'm assuming a lot of photography sophistication that the elephant foot photographer may or may not have but how knows!

Alupis 11y ago

This article[1] seems to believe it was multiple workers who took this photograph (and this source is a bit more credible imho), and notes it's still deadly to be in close proximity for more than 2 minutes. Your explanation still doesn't explain the lack of motion blur walking over to the spot, although we see the flashlight(s) blur. There also appears to be two distinct flashlight blurs. [1] http://nautil.us/blog/chernobyls-hot-mess-the-elephants-foot-is-still-lethal http://nautil.us/blog/chernobyls-hot-mess-the-elephants-foot...

foobarrio 11y ago
You're right in that we don't know how the photo was taken but a long photo exposure doesn't necessarily mean you will see his trail. My explanation still stands a pure guess of how that photo could have been taken. Let me explain more: There is only so much range a piece of film can achieve. I don't know how much you know about photos but exposure and light are usually discussed on a log(base 2) scale. Each exposure "unit" called a "stop" equates to doubling or halving the amount of light. So a 4 second exposure is 1 stop darker than an 8s one because it lets in half the light. Assuming there are no other light sources we can assume the entirety of the exposure came from the flash light. There is a shadow behind and above the elephants foot which tells us the elephants foot was illuminated by a light below the camera. Assuming the guy had the camera at almost eye level, shines the flashlight at waste level could produce this kind of shadow. Now let's say the guy turns the flashlight off walks over to where he is in the photo and starts moving the flash light more, shift position and does it again. You will not see him walk to the spot in the photo even if the room was not completely dark. If he took a 60 second photo, he set the exposure for 30ish seconds of light from flash light and not from ambient light. This means the ambient light reflecting off the guy while he walked probably exposed a trail that is over 10 stops below what the light from the flash light did. In good conditions your average color negative film has about 7 stops of dynamic range or +3 from middle tones before turning completely white and -3 from going to complete black. It's not hard to set up a photo where you don't register because you're trail exposes below the range of the film. Many people do these kinds of photos and they are called "lightpainting". This is very commonly done in landscapes where certain features of landscapes like trees and rocks are painted. You don't see the people walking around because they turn their lights off when they do it. They do produce walking smears but they account for such a small proportion of the overall exposure they don't show up in the final photo. I believe this what these guys do and notice no people in their photos: http://www.lightmark.de/overview.html http://www.lightmark.de/overview.html However they might compositing images. Here is another example: http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/554997063-glowing-digital-map-location-symbol-at-night-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=7GmQGnKe6mGnNVLN1Vaiob%2BFgmKQs1UrpNbf8CnBmE8R98SQJSyh0NBjtvOdvTtyJtz63aGFNIhRvOYPknpBsw%3D%3D http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/554997063-glowing-digital-m... I've personally done photos like that in a single long exposure. I'm sure the photos I linked have lots of photoshop to get them perfect to get them perfect the principal stands. I'm assuming a lot of photography sophistication that the elephant foot photographer may or may not have but how knows!