A while ago I posted some pictures taken through a model of Samuel Van Hoogstraten’s peepshow:
https://natchard.com/2011/09/30/403/
I dug out some of the test shots, where some of the less successful ones reveal the seam between the material and pictorial space.
Van Hoogstraten's peepshow test
They are shot using a home made camera. It uses a pinhole to get the depth of field to make sense of both the space inside the box and my studio behind (the model is much smaller than the real peepshow). The camera has a lot of shift so that the image captures the whole available view with close to the ideal resolution of the anamorphic projection.
Van Hoogstraten's peepshow test
Van Hoogstraten's peepshow test
In the image above, where the lighting is not even enough, you can see the form of the box more clearly than in the previous shots. This image does not have the light shining up through the cut out doors.
Van Hoogstraten's peepshow test
Test (above) with too short an exposure so that the light shining though the cut out door is exposed but hardly anything else. It does, however, isolate that light to compare with the other shots. The light is only shining though one of the doors at this stage. When shining though both the shadows present an even greater paradox.
Van Hoogstraten's peepshow test
Compare the photographs above with the more balanced exposure above. All are shot using Polaroid 669 stock. The demise of Polaroid is a great loss. I have not tried the Impossible project’s material yet – all my Polaroid backs are for peel-apart film as I mostly used 669 and type 59.
Van Hoogstraten's peepshow test
A test for the reverse view (above). The reflections of the (painted) light from the window undermines the form of the ceiling’s timber beams.
Van Hoogstraten's peepshow test
A less balanced exposure again reveals the form of the box rather than the pictorial space of the room.
Nat Chard 