Bob W. wrote: > So what? During the Renaissance and later some painters used optical > devices, lenses etc. to help them with their painting. We know this > because some of them, and some other Renaissance people, wrote about > it and even painted it. It was no secret.
Bob, chill off, take a deep breath, relax and smile! :-) I hope it only seems to me, and in reality you don't have any type of a grudge against science and scientists. 1. Forgive me for omitting a very important part in my summary (from your arguments it appears that you didn't "go to the source"). Let me quote, e.g. the introduction of the first article: ".. work now shows that the use of projected images in art goes back at least 150 years further than previously thought." (Mind, that they properly acknowledge previous knowledge and findings.) So, this is the first important fact. If you argue that it is not correct, please provide specific references showing otherwise. It is like somebody discovered a photo made with a Pentax camera in 1802. :-) If you can unambiguously prove such a fact about Pentax - I bet - you can publish it. :-) 2. There are other interesting findings in the published papers. To avoid omitting some important details, I will refrain myself from presenting them here, and would rather refer those interested to the FAQ compiled by Falco (and the original publications referenced and linked therein): http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/FAQ.html What is very interesting in their finding to me (and I hoped would be of interest to some PDML people), is the fact that they were able to estimate parameters (focal lengths, sizes) of the lenses used by the artists. Igor FYI: When you publish articles in scientific journals, you do not get paid for that, at least, not in physical sciences. One doesn't get paid for conference presentations either, even if you have an invited talk. They probably were paid for the article in a book that is the last on that list. But it is a lot of work, writing even one chapter of a book. I am not talking here about Hockney's book of which I know very limited information. I am talking about publications related to optical analyses. Careful research like this involves a lot of hard work. So, when somebody makes findings like this, - he deserves his fame. And if he gets paid for some of his public lectures or other presentations of his work - I am happy for him. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
