Looks like the photographer only said "It could be one of, if not the, longest exposures in existence", and they took it from there
In this context: “are you sure it’s the longest long-exposure in the world? Have you checked every single camera or device that employs a camera obscura technique?” isn’t a very reasonable objection. And “known” isn’t a weasel word so much as a tautological qualifier. It doesn’t weaken the statement in anyway, it just clarifies that the author is not ominiscient.
If the headline was “believed to be one of the longest” because they were aware of a longer long-exposure, that would be much more weaselly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinspeck_camera
(p.s. you seem to be shadowbanned)
Then how can you see and reply to my post?
I really can't think of what I did to deserve a shadow ban.
Would be interesting if we ever found such a case where a discernible image got burned on the wall.
On the other hand, there is certainly a surveillance camera somewhere quietly humming along for way longer than this, and you could make a photograph by simply averaging all the video frames.
Sure, but that's a different thing, even if the effect is similar.
>It could be one of, if not the, longest exposures in existence.