There's a good essay by Ernst Gombrich on this called Mirror and Map.
Off the top of my head, in a different way, loudspeaker design also
manipulates frequency response curves to try to make the sound "nice",
Nicky Hamlyn.
On 29 Oct 2010, at 19:17, John Matturri wrote:
> But the claim isn't about the eye, visual system, or reproducing
> vision. The first thing that a photographer has to learn is that the
> camera doesn't reproduce what we see: for example, the constancies
> don't work in a photo in the way they do in vision: so you take a
> picture and your subject turns out to be too small in the frame. The
> objectivity of the photography just is the systematic mechanical/
> chemical mapping of values from the world to the sensor or film.
> There are conventions of camera/lens/film/sensor design but any of
> these provides just as much objectivity, a wildly anamorphic lens as
> much as a standard lens.
>
> j
>
> On 10/29/10 1:04 PM, bill harris wrote:
>> --_05163c74-9a97-4118-813c-283ca3383045_
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>>
>> Here's a small example-- on the level of simple=2C accepted
>> technique-- as =
>> to how the camera cannot capture the 'rteality' of the eye.
>> =20
>> Eye focal length is about 35mm. At that perspective=2C what the eye
>> sees is=
>> =2C among other things=2C a hugely oversized nose. So the brain
>> readjusts t=
>> he perspective=3B which is to say that the eye is only one part of
>> the visu=
>> al system.
>> =20
>> But as we speak=2C cameras are yet to be fitted with brains that
>> might dist=
>> inguish=2C say=2C the intentional detailing of a face from reading
>> the keyp=
>> ad in a cellphone.
>> =20
>> Therefore=2C to portray a realistic face=2C the shooter must adjust
>> back th=
>> e focal length to the 60-80 range. Photographic reality=2C from the
>> basics=
>> =2C relies on human convention and adjustment.
>> =20
>> BH
>>
>> =20
>> =20
>>> Date: Thu=2C 28 Oct 2010 13:44:05 -0400
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: ontology=2C transparency and the "disposable camera"
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> =20
>>> On 10/28/10 1:10 PM=2C William Brown wrote:
>>>> Photos are not necessarily 'transparent' indices of a reality=2C
>>>> then=
>> =2C
>>>> but they do have (potentially) a photonic-indexical link across
>>>> time
>>>> to what was in front of the lens at the time of image capture.
>>> What you call "photonic-indexical link" seems pretty much to be
>>> what is=20
>>> meant by transparency. Though I guess that there can be non-
>>> photonic=20
>>> photo-like indexicality=2C like a kind of Alexieff-type pin
>>> animation in=
>> =20
>>> which the pins were pushed by the actual objects represented.
>>> =20
>>>> My contention would be
>>>> that photography can 'echo' real photons.
>>> The metaphysics of light lives on in some filmmakers. I've seen=20
>>> filmmakers hold up a strip of camera-original reversal stock and
>>> exclaim=
>> =20
>>> that the photons the bounced off the subject directly hit these
>>> very=20
>>> frames. This desire for getting as close to unmediated
>>> representation as=
>> =20
>>> possible goes deep. The best painted pictures of the Virgin were
>>> those=20
>>> believed to be done from life by Luke (an amazing artist who
>>> anticipated=
>> =20
>>> medieval styles by centuries) but even better were those icons
>>> said to=20
>>> be made miraculously with human hands or with mechanical contact
>>> like=20
>>> Veronica's veil and the shroud of Turin. (Right about the time
>>> that the=20
>>> chemical tests of the shroud came out I went up to the US shroud=20
>>> headquarters in the Bronx to get publishable pictures and
>>> permission to=20
>>> publish them=3B given the debunking of the time the priest in
>>> charge was=
>> =20
>>> initially skeptical but when I explained that I was writing about=20
>>> photography he saw the point immediately.)
>>> =20
>>> I suspect that the uncanniness of all images is also based=2C as
>>> you say=
>> =2C=20
>>> on the fact that they are processed by the visual system and its=20
>>> recognitional subsystems in the same way that ordinary perception
>>> is.=20
>>> "Seeing is believing" may be the default working principle of
>>> visual=20
>>> belief production but this default can be over-ridden by awareness
>>> that=20
>>> we are seeing an image rather than the actual object. But we are
>>> also=20
>>> aware of how different images are made=2C so the over-riding
>>> process may=
>> =20
>>> be weaker for photos: we get a sense of real contact=2C perhaps=2C
>>> but no=
>> t=20
>>> to the point where we try to carry on a conversation. The
>>> uncanniness=20
>>> may be retained despite the over-riding=2C just as we still have a
>>> sense=
>> =20
>>> the the Muller-Lyer lines are different sizes even after we come
>>> to know=
>> =20
>>> and believe that they are the same size.
>>> =20
>>> j
>>> =20
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Film-Philosophy
>>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>>> you ar=
>> e replying to
>>> To leave=2C send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
>>> jiscmail@jiscmail=
>> .ac.uk
>>> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>>> For technical help email: [log in to unmask] not the salon
>>> *
>>> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>>> **
>> =
>>
>> *
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy
>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>> you are replying to
>> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>> **
>>
>> --_05163c74-9a97-4118-813c-283ca3383045_
>> Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> <html>
>> <head>
>> <style><!--
>> .hmmessage P
>> {
>> margin:0px=3B
>> padding:0px
>> }
>> body.hmmessage
>> {
>> font-size: 10pt=3B
>> font-family:Tahoma
>> }
>> --></style>
>> </head>
>> <body class=3D'hmmessage'>
>> Here's a small example-- on the level of simple=2C accepted
>> technique--&nbs=
>> p=3Bas to how the camera =3Bcannot capture the 'rteality' of
>> the eye.<B=
>> R>
>>  =3B<BR>
>> Eye focal length is =3Babout 35mm. At that
>> perspective=2C =3Bwhat t=
>> he eye sees =3Bis=2C among other things=2C a hugely oversized
>> nose. So =
>> the brain readjusts the perspective=3B which is to say that the eye
>> is only=
>> one part of =3Bthe visual system.<BR>
>>  =3B<BR>
>> But as we speak=2C cameras are yet to be fitted with brains that
>> might dist=
>> inguish=2C say=2C the intentional detailing of a face from reading
>> the keyp=
>> ad in a cellphone.<BR>
>>  =3B<BR>
>> Therefore=2C to portray a realistic face=2C the shooter must adjust
>> back th=
>> e focal length to the 60-80 range. Photographic reality=2C from the
>> basics=
>> =2C =3Brelies on human convention and adjustment.<BR>
>>  =3B<BR>
>> BH<BR>
>>
>>  =3B<BR>
>>  =3B<BR>
>> >=3B Date: Thu=2C 28 Oct 2010 13:44:05 -0400<BR>>=3B From:
>> jmatturr@EAR=
>> THLINK.NET<BR>>=3B Subject: Re: ontology=2C transparency and the
>> "disposa=
>> ble camera"<BR>>=3B To: FILM-
>> [log in to unmask]<BR>>=3B<BR>>=
>> =3B On 10/28/10 1:10 PM=2C William Brown wrote:<BR>>=3B>=3B
>> Photos are=
>> not necessarily 'transparent' indices of a reality=2C
>> then=2C<BR>>=3B&g=
>> t=3B but they do have (potentially) a photonic-indexical link
>> across time<B=
>> R>>=3B>=3B to what was in front of the lens at the time of
>> image captu=
>> re.<BR>>=3B What you call "photonic-indexical link" seems pretty
>> much to =
>> be what is<BR>>=3B meant by transparency. Though I guess that
>> there can =
>> be non-photonic<BR>>=3B photo-like indexicality=2C like a kind of
>> Alexie=
>> ff-type pin animation in<BR>>=3B which the pins were pushed by
>> the actua=
>> l objects represented.<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B>=3B My contention
>> would be<B=
>> R>>=3B>=3B that photography can 'echo' real photons.<BR>>=3B
>> The met=
>> aphysics of light lives on in some filmmakers. I've seen<BR>>=3B
>> filmmak=
>> ers hold up a strip of camera-original reversal stock and
>> exclaim<BR>>=
>> =3B that the photons the bounced off the subject directly hit these
>> very<B=
>> R>>=3B frames. This desire for getting as close to unmediated
>> representat=
>> ion as<BR>>=3B possible goes deep. The best painted pictures of
>> the Virg=
>> in were those<BR>>=3B believed to be done from life by Luke (an
>> amazing =
>> artist who anticipated<BR>>=3B medieval styles by centuries) but
>> even be=
>> tter were those icons said to<BR>>=3B be made miraculously with
>> human ha=
>> nds or with mechanical contact like<BR>>=3B Veronica's veil and
>> the shro=
>> ud of Turin. (Right about the time that the<BR>>=3B chemical
>> tests of th=
>> e shroud came out I went up to the US shroud<BR>>=3B headquarters
>> in the=
>> Bronx to get publishable pictures and permission to<BR>>=3B
>> publish the=
>> m=3B given the debunking of the time the priest in charge
>> was<BR>>=3B in=
>> itially skeptical but when I explained that I was writing
>> about<BR>>=3B =
>> photography he saw the point immediately.)<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B I
>> suspect t=
>> hat the uncanniness of all images is also based=2C as you
>> say=2C<BR>>=3B=
>> on the fact that they are processed by the visual system and
>> its<BR>>=
>> =3B recognitional subsystems in the same way that ordinary
>> perception is.<=
>> BR>>=3B "Seeing is believing" may be the default working
>> principle of vis=
>> ual<BR>>=3B belief production but this default can be over-ridden
>> by awa=
>> reness that<BR>>=3B we are seeing an image rather than the actual
>> object=
>> . But we are also<BR>>=3B aware of how different images are
>> made=2C so t=
>> he over-riding process may<BR>>=3B be weaker for photos: we get a
>> sense =
>> of real contact=2C perhaps=2C but not<BR>>=3B to the point where
>> we try =
>> to carry on a conversation. The uncanniness<BR>>=3B may be
>> retained desp=
>> ite the over-riding=2C just as we still have a sense<BR>>=3B the
>> the Mul=
>> ler-Lyer lines are different sizes even after we come to
>> know<BR>>=3B an=
>> d believe that they are the same size.<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B
>> j<BR>>=3B<BR=
>>> >=3B *<BR>>=3B *<BR>>=3B Film-Philosophy<BR>>=3B After
>>> hitting 're=
>> ply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying
>> to<BR>&g=
>> t=3B To leave=2C send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
>> jiscmail@jiscm=
>> ail.ac.uk<BR>>=3B Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosop=
>> hy.html<BR>>=3B For technical help email:
>> [log in to unmask] not =
>> the salon<BR>>=3B *<BR>>=3B Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film
>> -phi=
>> losophy.com<BR>>=3B Contact: [log in to unmask]<BR>>=3B
>> **<BR><=
>> BR> </body>
>> </html>=
>> *
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon
>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>> you are replying to
>> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>> **
>>
>> --_05163c74-9a97-4118-813c-283ca3383045_--
>>
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
> you are replying to
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
*
*
Film-Philosophy
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|
