PetaPixel

Panoramic Pictures of Famous Locations Made From Carefully Shot 35mm Film

35mmfilmpanos-1

German photographer Thomas Kellner creates large-scale panoramas of famous locations using 35mm film. Rather than have the shots printed or digitized, Kellner uses scans of the film strips themselves. The rolls are kept in their long strips, which means Keller meticulously plans out and carefully shoots every shot to have the frames come together when the strips are placed side by side.

He has created these unique mosiac-style panoramas of popular tourist destinations all around the world, from Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco (shown above) to the Great Wall of China. The resulting project is titled, “Tango Metropolis“.

35mmfilmpanos-2

35mmfilmpanos-3

35mmfilmpanos-4

35mmfilmpanos-5

35mmfilmpanos-6

35mmfilmpanos-7

35mmfilmpanos-8

35mmfilmpanos-9

35mmfilmpanos-10

35mmfilmpanos-11

You can find more of these images over on Kellner’s website.

Kellner also has a prior project titled “Monuments,” which features smaller buildings and structures turned into smaller-scale panoramas (sometimes with a single roll of carefully exposed film).


Image credits: Photographs by Thomas Kellner and used with permission


 
  • agour

    Love them! Would be amazing to see them up close in person :)

    I had a similar idea using medium format film, but it would require building a custom camera. perhaps one day I’ll make it! I completely forgot about it until I saw this!

  • http://about.me/bmwgeek Dave Reynolds

    Or you could just take a single picture of each subject. What is the infatuation PetePixel has with convoluted image-creation techniques that add little value to the experience of viewing them other than the sheer amount of effort needed to create them?

  • harumph

    Insane. I love the castle best.

  • Kay O. Sweaver

    Because art is as much about process as product. Now as to whether that makes it good art or not is up for debate, but experimenting with a different technique is the point here, not the subjects themselves which can be found on any old postcard.

  • mojophoto.org

    original aspect of the subjects no doubt, really kool

  • http://twitter.com/StyleQuotient Melo

    These would be best served in person mounted and framed in large scale in gallery setting.

    On the web it looks unfinished and too small to appreciate.

  • Mansgame

    Amen…I think people are just grasping at gimmicks to make them look like artists instead of keeping their eyes open for photograph that will speak for itself. In this case, these are all postcard landmark pictures that we have seen over and over and over again. Bending over backwards and going around the block and making the process of taking that picture harder doesn’t change the fact that it’s a picture of something that’s already been done.

  • http://www.easy-snap.com/ yoJoebosolo

    looks like photosynth messed up the merging?
    ha, looks awesome, must have taken ages

  • http://twitter.com/PhotoGlow Jonathon Watkins

    Now that’s an expensive way to get an image. 20 rolls of 24 exposure film for each one. Like the effect though.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Mariosagt Mario Liedtke

    I guess he urgently needs a better tripod…

  • http://www.timuchin.com/ Timuçin HIZAL

    any time now be a instagram filter.

  • jack

    This is Not doing anything for me!

  • lidocaineus

    Exactly what @385c58dc47f88ca4a8b7cdd8e21790c6:disqus said. Aside from the obvious resolution differences (I’d like to see you take a single photo and enlarge it to the size you could with these separate film photos), process is as important, if not more important, in much of art. And not just the technique involved, but the thought processes; each shot was deliberate and taken from a vantage point to achieve a specific result. There’s also the fact that there’s a temporal nature in this – none of those shots happened at exactly the same time, meaning things changed, people walked into and out of frames, things stayed the same, etc. And then there’s the actual aspect of doing it – the people around the artist, interacting or not with him, influencing decisions either verbally or not… and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    You could take a million photos of the same thing and come up with a million different results – technique, artistic vision, and process all come together to result in different interpretations of the same thing. There’s nothing gimmicky at all about this, and it’s shocking that so many readers here just interpret it as a glorified snapshot. How depressing.

  • Caca Milis

    London bridge is falling down, the childhood song makes sense, the last image is pretty cool

  • ulfa

    some people have to much time. :)
    reminds me of a friend who pushes toothpaste back into the tube… just because he can.

  • ulfa1

    +1 dave….. some people think it´s art just because it´s complex to produce.
    well IMHO art is more about human skills then complexity.

  • Photo tiger

    Ironic that the grid structure makes each frame resemble a giant pixel.

  • http://about.me/bmwgeek Dave Reynolds

    I suppose
    this discussion hinges on the perspective one takes when considering
    someone’s art: do you consider it as someone who experiences the art or as an artist who creates in the same medium?

    From the perspective of the person who appreciates art, the process is largely irrelevant in the moment of experience. I’ve seen paintings in the flesh by Jackson Pollock, Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso and others. I used to mock Pollock because I thought “What kind of moron splashes paint on canvas and calls it art?” And then I saw a small Pollock in Seattle and I was blown away. It had so much motion in it. When you allow yourself to experience art in the moment, the creation process is completely irrelevant. You experience the piece not the process. For sure, knowledge of the process can enhance the experience but I know nothing of the processes of most of the artists whose work I’ve seen. I’ve had countless times of standing in a gallery with my mouth hanging open in quiet (and sometimes audible) awe and these moments came in ignorance of the process.

    When I take a photo and present it to my friends and they occasionally say “Wow” I don’t try to explain how I got the shot (not that there is anything remarkable about my process). The process doesn’t matter and in a way, knowing the process takes some of the mystery out of the end result. The joy of art comes from how it somehow connects a person to something outside the ordinary parts of their life. Knowing the process subtracts from the experience. Knowing satisfies the craving I have to try to control my world by knowing how and why everything works but after that, I’m left with a brief hangover of regret: “Why did I taint it with my desire to know?”

    Then there are the people who get more into the process than into the end result. I feel like many PetaPixel posts feature these contrived processes that, aside from involving copious amounts of effort, add little value to the end result. I think in particular of stop-motion videos that are comprised of tens of thousands of pictures that are painstakingly assembled when all the artist really had to do was shoot full-motion video and edit that content. Yes, I
    understand that there are advantages to the technique. But it seems
    some people want to impress others with their effort, the contortions
    they went through, the epic skills they have but really, I don’t care
    and it doesn’t matter. What matters to me is how someone’s art affects me in the moment. And when I
    see someone who goes through contrived ways to get a final result, I
    just think that for them, their art is the process and that’s just not
    art to me. That’s technique and technology. This is why I watch movies instead of watching movies about how movies are made.

    If you separate knowledge of the process featured in this post from the end result, you end up with weird digital art with a nonsense reference to analog film and contorted, unpleasant images. The
    images become somewhat more interesting with knowledge of the process
    but that means that these kinds of works have a hard time standing on
    their own merit.

  • lidocaineus

    I’d be surprised if even a small minority thinks that. There’s plenty of great art that’s incredibly simple in terms of technique. Regardless, these pieces are more than just about the complexity of staging the shots.

  • lidocaineus

    So when you look at the pieces and completely ignoring process, you don’t experientially consider the individual photos? You don’t think about why the artists chose a specific photo over another to fit in the square? Why he stood there? The temporal nature of this versus a single snapshot? These are all experiential questions (with some process overlap).

    Art appreciation includes process. Sometimes that’s a minuscule part of a piece, sometimes it’s almost the entire thing. Taking it out and just looking at art as experience in a vacuum is certainly a choice, though I’m inclined to say you’re missing a chunk of “the experience” as it were. Note that I’m with Kay on not making a judgement call on whether this is good or bad (that’s only my personal opinion anyway), but simply pointing out that there’s more to this than sticking together a bunch of photos that you could’ve gotten anyway from a single shot.

  • http://about.me/bmwgeek Dave Reynolds

    If the pictures on PetaPixel and the artist’s site were large enough to see the individual pictures then, yes I would scan them as I took the work as a whole in view.

    As I said, though, I don’t care why he stood there, why he took the individual shots he took, how long it took him to assemble the final products.

    I didn’t say that this is a picture that could have been taken simply with one image. I said I am not impressed by contrived processes. Having insight does not make me appreciate a work more or less. The work either affects me or it doesn’t.

    However, I just realized that in the works that have impressed me the process is self-evident. For example, when you look at Seurat’s work, you can see the process of pontilism. You can imagine the artist dotting rather than stroking a brush on canvas. Same thing with Van Gogh. His process is self-evident.

    What I am saying is that I am suspicious of art whose merit seems more heavily weighted in how it came to be rather than in how it affects a viewer. I question that the motive is more to impress a viewer with process than to express one’s self through their art. Process is uninteresting to me and so an artist who is infatuated with it is unlikely to appeal to me.

  • lidocaineus

    I don’t think it’s a contrived process at all, and I couldn’t care less about the actual effort it took (time, money, patience), but the conscious choices during the process do interest me (apparently they do to you as well, since you point out Seurat and Van Gogh). But let’s completely remove any process from the piece (which is ridiculous, but let’s do that for the sake of argument); you’re left with a fractured image from a multitude of vantage points. You’re then left with figuring out what one particular vantage point reveals that another doesn’t. Or you can start thinking about how if you could take a number of people walking by these structures and somehow pull out the quick memory they had of that structure and print it, this might be it. And that leads to thinking about individual views on structures we see everyday, and how we either ignore or process them, or how we see each thing differently. Sometimes there’s a bird there. Sometimes there’s not. Or you’re looking at a part of a structure from a different position because you had to dodge a car or avoid a group of people.

    And that’s what I come away with; the same structure broken into a million vantage points, similar to someone taking a photo of the same structure every day for a set amount of time. This is his version of that and brings up similar ideas and themes. You seem to think his pieces are all about processes with no actual substantive end result; I think the exact opposite.

    Also I will point out that in your original post, you DID point out that you could just take one single photo of the subject, insinuating that would lead to the same end result.

  • http://about.me/bmwgeek Dave Reynolds

    Ahhh the fun of pretending I can comment and work at the same time.

    Yes I did say that but not to say that it would have the same effect. What I am saying is that I prefer simple approaches to art. Take a picture with a unique perspective or even some technique but don’t expect me to think it’s great just because the technique is labor-intensive. That’s really all my point is. I like simple and concise.

  • anonymous

    well, thats exactly the point. consider these images a corrective to conventional perception. ist always helpful to question apparent matters of course, isn’t it?

  • anonymous

    i think we need to distinguish a little bit. of course, kellner’s work is inspired by hockney, no doubt. but it’s a totally different approach, both to the process and the effect. as you probably know, hockney’s collages are made of single polaroids – each one of them contributes to an “erratic” arrangement (a kind of delirium snapshot of fantastic landscapes, for example), whereas kellners compositions follow a specific structure (the contact sheet). plus, his images challenge our perception of reality more directly, because he goes straight to the object (to architectural icons we are used to). so hockney didn’t do “this” 30 years ago

  • http://twitter.com/upscaleboho Upscale Bohemian

    This artist’s work is creative and obviously took a lot of effort to produce. Many of you commenting sound like photography snobs who think anything that doesn’t apply a classical aesthetic or is not suited to your individual taste is garbage. You can appreciate art without being in love with it. Sheesh…

  • http://www.facebook.com/orangecountyphotographer Marc Weisberg

    Amazing and totally creative concept.

  • The Flying Camera

    Dave Reynolds’ rambling and conceited post makes references to Jackson Pollock who, interestingly, did not consider his work as “art”! That’s the first error people make. If you want to refer to Pollock’s work as art, you can, but we, including myself as a collector, do not. We view his work as a statement.

    The process Kellner has explored is involved and mentally taxing. It is not contrived, but experimental and objective in bringing common themes into an unfamiliar visual sphere that causes us to retreat momentarily and examine in critical detail what we are seeing, and to question why it is so difference, not so much why it should be so different, or aggravating to commonly accepted views. A few posts here suggest photographers don’t have a great deal of experience to set themselves to this task. Full credit to Kellner for bringing to fruition such a demanding task. It’s keeping film at the forefront of creative imaging and leaving digital to the dustbins where it belongs.

  • A.Dent

    Har ni sett priserna för en print? Great Wall kostar 4500$-16000$ från första till sista print. Han har verkligen höga priser.

  • A.Dent

    Sorry, I forgot to translate :-)

    Have you seen the prices for a print? Great Wall costs $ 4,500 $ -16,000 from the first to the last print. He has really high prices.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=524824852 Nico Mar

    is it a fail ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.nunn1 Andrew Wade Nunn

    You’re completely out of your mind if you think so. This is not Hockney’s work. Inspired by? Probably. However it is completely different. I don’t know how I can create words to voice how ignorant I think you are… You’re pretty ignorant though.

  • Erik

    another artist drinking from Pep Ventosa’s work : )

  • Coates

    And I thought Hockney’s work was time consuming and meticulous, this is amazing!