In some parts of the world, we have recently been told, the act of taking a photograph of a person (with a Pentax camera?) removes a part of his or her 'soul'. One must assume, using the same logic, that this 'part' is somehow incorporated into the photographic image. Ah! Now I realise why I have always have strange dreams after looking at my grandfather's picture.
But does this magical transfer go on, from negative, to print, to scanned image displayed on one's screen? Does it fly down the wires, or through the ether, as part of the digital stream? Forever? And by how much is the subject weakened? By what percentage of what? How many photographs do we need to take to kill a man? A child? A dog? Or has the soul nothing to do with the body? In which case I change my questions. How many pictures do we need to take to turn someone into a devil? Last night Don Ameche walked through my bedroom wall, as he often does, in a cloud of tobacco smoke. He was dressed in tails, his white tie was skewed and he was carrying a cocktail glass. The left hand side of his moustache was missing and a cigarette dangled from his thin lips. Has this imagery, perhaps, something to do with the radical new approaches to science to which we have all recently been exposed? Don was accompanied by a woman in white who may, or may not, have been Gloria Swanson. As my Old uncle used to sing "Ah, sweet mystery of life at last I've found thee!" And none of this has anything to do with Pentax. I am sure someone will have answers to the above rubbish, but I do hope they don't post them. D Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 12:05 PM Subject: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section > To know about numbers is mathematics. > In an earlier post you wrote about languages (with reference to Hayakawa). > Try to think mathematics as a language - a system of description. Objects exist whether there are Bobs to describe them - and have attributes. > Your beloved snowflake is there (or is not) and has its attributes, it is the Bobs that describe it as having 6 six sides and/or being a snowflake. Both descriptions are valid - within the very system of description, in binary system the snowflake has 100 sides and in Finnish it is not called snowflake at all. > QOD: there are no numbers in nature (and the concept of numbers is meaningless outside mathematics). One would think that for a photographer it would be easy to see the difference between the object and a photograph of it (a description of the object). > All the best! > Raimo > Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- > Lähettäjä: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Päivä: 29. joulukuuta 2002 23:34 > Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section > > > >It is clear that we are not communicating. I have no idea why an object has > >to know anything about it's attributes for it to have those attributes. > > > >Again, nothing helpful - as usuall. > > > >Bob.... > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" > > - Benjamin Franklin > > > >From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> No, even if there are 6 sides in a number of snowflakes, the number is not > >there. The snowflake does not know it and neither does the water vapour it > >is formed of. I might be wrong but we have a lot of snow here sometimes - > >but no snowflake with any number has been observed. > >> And "the universal constant of gravitation can be calculated" - yeah, > >sure, anything can be *calculated* - but it´s not those uranium balls (i.e. > >nature) doing the calculations (and how do you find uranium balls in nature, > >anyway). > >> I think it would be helpful to photography if we could look at it just as > >it is - painting by numbers has not advanced art very much. IMHO it is the > >content which proves a photo good or not-so-good. > >> All the best! > >> Raimo > >> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > >> > >> -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- > >> Lähettäjä: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Päivä: 29. joulukuuta 2002 22:07 > >> Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section > >> > >> > >> >I'm not sure I understand what you wrote but I'll give it a try. > >> > > >> >> Tell me one instance when a number has been observed in the nature. > >> > > >> >A undisturbed snowflakes (part of nature) have 6 (a number) sides, why. > >> > > >> >When dropping a dense (to reduce the part played by friction) object > >(things > >> >fall in nature as in apples from trees) they are observed to accelerate > >at > >> >32.17 feet per second per second. > >> > > >> >When two large, dense (lead or uranium) balls are hung side by side but > >not > >> >touching, the universal constant of gravitation can be calculated. > >> > > >> >Various sunflowers have a differing numbers of seed spirals. The number > >is > >> >always, not usually, always a Fibonacci number. > >> > > >> >> Lots of numbers can be found in the observations of nature which > >> >> describe it - but these numbers are just descriptions. The laws are > >> >> calculated afterwards. > >> > > >> >This would not make the laws invalid, however it's not always this way. > >> >Maxwell's Laws predicted all sorts of things never observed in nature at > >the > >> >time but which I now use in predicting electromagnetic propagation and in > >> >designing antennas. > >> > > >> >Einstein's Theory of Relativity was based on his notion that the speed of > >> >light is constant regardless of the motion of the observers, a fact not > >> >shown (measured) until after it was published. The mathematics predicted > >> >strange things never before observed in nature but which were observed in > >> >nature afterward. Things such as dilation of time, increase of mass in > >> >objects as they are accelerated to within significant fractions of the > >speed > >> >of light, the bending of light as it travels past a massive object. > >> > > >> >It usually works the other way around because of the nature of man. We > >look > >> >at something and wonder to ourselves... why? How much? This is due > >entirely > >> >to the nature of man, not to the numbers later observed in nature. > >> > > >> >Now, many of us have observed that some art is held in high regard in > >nearly > >> >all cultures and has weathered the exceptionally well over time. Not > >being > >> >arrogant bastards, (at least in this respect) it is natural for us to ask > >> >the question... why? > >> > > >> >Some have offered time accepted starting points (helpful). Others post > >only > >> >to tear down (not helpful). Perhaps you would now care to be helpful, > >> >instead of wasting bandwidth with questions whose answers, in any form, > >true > >> >or false, cannot aid folks trying to improve themselves. > >> > > >> >Hell, I'm asking the question! Are you up to it? > >> > > >> >Regards, > >> >Bob.... > >> >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" > >> > - Benjamin Franklin > >> > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > >> >From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 10:47 AM > >> >Subject: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section > >> > > >> > > >> >> It is the other way round. Tell me one instance when a number has been > >> >observed in the nature. Lots of numbers can be found in the observations > >of > >> >nature which describe it - but these numbers are just descriptions. The > >laws > >> >are calculated afterwards. > >> >> Next you will be arguing that nature follows photographs? > >> >> All the best! > >> >> Raimo > >> >> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > > >
