Photographer Captures Ethereal Photographs by First Soaking Her Film in Urine


Most of us baby our film, making sure it’s kept at the right temperature so that it produces the best possible photos when we finally do use it. Photographer Brigette Bloom takes a different approach: she pees on hers… seriously.

For her series Float On, the Hawaii-based photog produced ethereal imagery by soaking the film in a cup of her own pee before she ever went out to shoot it.

According to Feature Shoot, Bloom’s workflow (there’s a pee pun in there somewhere) involved steeping her film canisters in a cup of urine so that the chemicals in the pee could break down parts of the emulsion, then rinsing it off and letting it dry for a week before actually going out and shooting with it.


Depending on the time of day she… um… collected her materials and what she had eaten that day, the film would break down in different ways, but all of the images have a very ethereal, out of this world feel to them.

Here’s the rest of the Float On series that Bloom was kind enough to share with us:






To see more of Bloom’s work, or if you’d like to follow along on her photographic adventures, be sure to check out her website and then give her a follow on Instagram. (Note: Some of the projects on her website are NSFW)

(via Feature Shoot)

Image credits: Photographs by Brigette Bloom and used with permission

  • flightofbooks

    The artist is literally adding their biological processes to the film. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

  • flightofbooks

    why not?

  • flightofbooks

    And once again the rubes in pp’s comment section (see what I did there?) illustrate their ignorance of even the most basic artistic grammar. Go figure.

  • Roddaz

    great shots :)

  • Lajos Andrejkovics

    Sometimes trying to be interesting ends up being an idiot. It’s not even looking good…

  • Fin

    I suspect this is “taking the piss”. What a load of untalented rubbish, the result of unimaginative manipulation of already mediocre shots made worse by random chemical adulteration.

    No doubt her next project will involve further body excretions and secretions in the hope of gaining the attention her “talent” will never attract.

  • Louis

    Beyond Bollocks

  • Louis

    All the hall marks of someone desperately trying to be good

  • Guest

    Reminds me of Pink Floyd’s Meddle cover. Nice work.

  • Keith Goldstein

    U rine the money….

  • Tobias W.


  • Jack B. Siegel

    What’s the point then?

    Photographers spend way too much time worrying about how photos were made–is it medium format, was this lens used, is it film or digital? I am just as guilty of this as the next photographer. Equipment is fun and post-capture processing s is fun. Both, however, are inside baseball.

    I have a Leica system and a Canon system. Supposedly the Leica lenses are the best in the world, but when I photograph jazz musicians, I use the Canon system. I often given the musicians copies of the photographs. I have never heard anyone (including non musicians who enjoy the photographs, too) say, “It would have been a better photograph if you had used Leica lenses.” Photographs that stand the test of time must exist in the four-corners of the print or screen. It is either an interesting composition, interesting light, a compelling graphic, or a noteworthy subject.

    I can guarantee you that in 20 years time, no one will remember these photographs, or many of the photographs that PetaPixel features because someone found a marketing gimmick. Saul Leiter, Bruce Davidson, Josef Koudella, now you are talking about memorable photographs.

  • Oj0

    I would say the results came out crap, but this isn’t the butt-end of photography.

  • Jeremiah True

    Yeah, that’s where I net out on this too. I get the whole, let’s try new processes but like the guy who offers to develop film with vinegar, bleach, etc… its interesting but ultimately not what I have in mind.

  • Jeremiah True

    Yeah, if she sent this to a lab (doubtful) that would mess the chemistry up pretty quickly.

  • Jeremy Woodhouse

    Pee[p] hole Camera?

  • OtterMatt

    Straightforward has very little to do with it. This is just an idea from a broken mind. You can defend it all you wish, it’s still sickening to most of us. I’m reminded of a quote from video critic Yahtzee (I’ll paraphrase):

    “If you want to cover yourself in poo and stand in an art museum to make a statement, you have that right, but at the end of the day you still smell like a dog turd.”

  • Bill Binns

    Agreed. “Artists” desperately seeking attention through the use of bodily fluids, nudity or blasphemous use of religous symbols is old, played out and no longer shocking or interesting.

  • Chang

    I agree with your point, but it is a bit funny that every one of the photographers you mentioned was a Leica user. :-)

  • Jack B. Siegel

    I was unaware of that. I love Leiter because his photos are painterly, Koudella I like because he exposed for the faces and let the rest of the photograph go where it might–often resulting in deep blacks, and I like Davidson because of his subject matter.

    Interestingly in terms of this article, Leiter apparently like using color film that had exceeded its sell by date. He liked the resulting color shifts, or so I have read.

  • Chang

    I love Leiter and Koudelka as well, though I’ve never been a Davidson fan. To each their own.