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] **