As would dogs... This always leading me to wonder about how much we are missing in the spectrum.
Mantis shrimp has entered the chatAs would dogs... This always leading me to wonder about how much we are missing in the spectrum.
Semantics, what you say is same thing, makes no difference how it processed, When I say " that's what I see" it ought to be simple enough for anyone to understand. If instead I starting talking about how the "electric impulses" traveled through my internals, good portion of audience I was trying to address would go ... what ?!
Neither the eyes nor the brain "see." Optical images stop at the retina.
As someone pointed out -- the terminology is all screwed up, so thus the discussion...
And what I find the most interesting about the F64 group was the inclusion of women artists as equal members...something not found in Europe or elsewhere in the USA up to that time. And perhaps one of the reasons the movement caught on.
None of this is important if one just wants to make pretty pictures. If one is trying to translate experiences and one's personal appreciation for the light through one's images, then it is worth considering.
When I was eleven (1965), I was watching a national holiday parade in some mid-west town...Lincoln, Nebraska perhaps. I stood at the curb watching various tanks, personnel carriers and what not flow down the street in front of me. A hot day...looking down at the pavement at my feet, I could see the asphalt move. Too spooky to mention to anyone in my family around me -- did not anyone else notice?
Eventually discovered that when presented with a constantly flowing image, my brain wants to continue that flow when looking away from the original movement, causing an otherwise static image (reality?) to move. Sitting on a tailgate of a pickup driving out of Kings Canyon (1973), watching the landscape recede, the driver pulled out at a wide spot and stopped completely. Both my friend and I on the tailgate started to freak. To us, our brains told us that since the landscape was no longer receding, we must be moving in the opposite direction, and it took us that second or two to be sure the truck was not actually rolling backwards over the cliff as our brains were trying to tell us it was.
Anyone with experience with courts know the unreliability of an eye witness.
When I was eleven (1965), I was watching a national holiday parade in some mid-west town...Lincoln, Nebraska perhaps. I stood at the curb watching various tanks, personnel carriers and what not flow down the street in front of me. A hot day...looking down at the pavement at my feet, I could see the asphalt move. Too spooky to mention to anyone in my family around me -- did not anyone else notice?
Eventually discovered that when presented with a constantly flowing image, my brain wants to continue that flow when looking away from the original movement, causing an otherwise static image (reality?) to move. Sitting on a tailgate of a pickup driving out of Kings Canyon (1973), watching the landscape recede, the driver pulled out at a wide spot and stopped completely. Both my friend and I on the tailgate started to freak. To us, our brains told us that since the landscape was no longer receding, we must be moving in the opposite direction, and it took us that second or two to be sure the truck was not actually rolling backwards over the cliff as our brains were trying to tell us it was.
Anyone with experience with courts know the unreliability of an eye witness.
Neither the eyes nor the brain "see." Optical images stop at the retina.
And how do you define "see"?Sort of depends on how you define "see".
And how do you define "see"?
When I was eleven (1965), I was watching a national holiday parade in some mid-west town...Lincoln, Nebraska perhaps. I stood at the curb watching various tanks, personnel carriers and what not flow down the street in front of me. A hot day...looking down at the pavement at my feet, I could see the asphalt move. Too spooky to mention to anyone in my family around me -- did not anyone else notice?
Eventually discovered that when presented with a constantly flowing image, my brain wants to continue that flow when looking away from the original movement, causing an otherwise static image (reality?) to move. Sitting on a tailgate of a pickup driving out of Kings Canyon (1973), watching the landscape recede, the driver pulled out at a wide spot and stopped completely. Both my friend and I on the tailgate started to freak. To us, our brains told us that since the landscape was no longer receding, we must be moving in the opposite direction, and it took us that second or two to be sure the truck was not actually rolling backwards over the cliff as our brains were trying to tell us it was.
Anyone with experience with courts know the unreliability of an eye witness.
Image what a bottle of Scotch could do to the images from the back of a pickup truck.
I wonder what Geordi "sees", if anything. As I understand it, he is two optical paths short of a full deck. At least according to Pieter12, he can't "see", yet you rarely observe him walking around with a white-tipped cane or holding his arms out in front of him so he doesn't bang into things. Probably some digital fakery involved in his visor, so it is not "real" "seeing". (I am running out of quotation marks quickly.)Cool about the snow, Sirius...have not experienced enough snow yet. I love the Star Trekkish going into Warp Speed when driving with big flakes coming down.
I prefer Moses, with his decalog of ten, to St Ansel, who customarily allowed only eight functional zones of light.
I have owned five dogs, all of whom lived long lives, but not one of them showed any interest in photography other than stopping moving to pose when they saw a camera aimed at them. I would be interested in seeing your dogs' photographic work. Please share.
However the brain processes the impulses generated by the optical image, and the result of the brain processing is what we perceive as "seeing".
Based on the color spectrum they could see, I would think they would like B/W photos better.
Explain the color purple to a person who's been blind since birth.
I think old Moses dropped more than one tablet.
And what I find the most interesting about the F64 group was the inclusion of women artists as equal members...something not found in Europe or elsewhere in the USA up to that time. And perhaps one of the reasons the movement caught on.
The counter to your hypothesis is that there were quite a few women in the Pictoralist movement already. Maybe men and women jumped on the Group f/64 movement because it was easier to take a photograph of of a mountain and stream and process it simply than to come up with a hare-brained idea which required a Hollywood set to execute. You can't very well do that in you basement darkroom on a Sunday afternoon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?