birds
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 9 Jul 2010 12:52 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:45:18 -0700, in <lfke36l7jco5lf6465n0td526gf5670e5r(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Joseph A. Goguen > What Is Art? > Editorial Introduction > > IV: Conclusions > > This essay has explored some the most popular definitions and > theories of art and beauty. We seem forced to conclude that it is > difficult, or even impossible, to define art and beauty, or to > adequately classify the complex relationships between art and > science. ... <http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Introduction.pdf>
From: -hh on 10 Jul 2010 06:23 James Nagler <jnag...(a)spamproofed.net> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > > >One could argue that these are strictly scientific / technical > >images ... however, in looking at comparable works that are now > >considered to be Artful as well as informative, we find Audubon's: > > >http://www.audubon.org/bird/BoA/images/originals/00344p1.gif > > >Note the use again of white backgrounds. > > >Similarly, while some of Audubon's images illustrate spread wings and > >the like, the technology limitations of the day were such that John > >Audubon often worked with freshly killed birds as his models, so these > >illustrations were static representations of what he *believed* he was > >observing in living, moving specimens. Zuckerman's approach simply > >applies the works of "Doc" Harold "Papa Flash" Edgerton to eliminate > >the human-based estimation and give us a blink of actual reality. > >Just as Edgerton's works did, such as his "Making Applesauce at MIT": > > >http://listart.mit.edu/files/edgerton.jpg > > Discarding that "human based estimation" is an error of maximum > proportions, an idea suggested by someone completely ignorant to the > purpose of the technical illustration. On the contrary: the question of if it is "right" or "wrong" depends significantly on the reason why you're doing what you're doing. For example, Audubon's method lacks the ability to accurately determine certain non-static factors, such as velocity. > You need to learn the difference between technical illustrations and > photography. My apologies, but please understand that even after reading your post through multiple times, it is my impression is that you're taking an extremely narrow view on the potential scientific/technical value of these photos -and- that you seem to believe that these photos were exclusively intended to be technically only. Please note that despite your defensiveness, I never claimed that this style of photography was going to replace technical illustration. All I said was that technical illustration (and in particular, its form) is not precluded from also being aesthetically "pretty". > There's a reason that technical drawing is still, and always will be, > of more importance to the researcher than photography ever will be. "Never say never" :-) For the very reason that we identify the two as distinct means also that they are two different tools and as such, the one can never completely usurp the other. Similarly, this also means that claims of hierarchy are invariably situationally dependent and never absolutist. > One of the first things you will learn in any course about biology or > microbiology is how to do (or at least comprehend why it is important) a > technical illustration of what you are observing. The technical illustrator > intentionally highlights or makes more apparent those features of the > subject that delineate its identity or specialization apart from all > similar subjects based on human perceptions. Yes, but Biology is merely but one scientific discipline. While the basic principles for technical illustration and documentation follow common basic principles (as you mention), the techniques and standards followed do vary - significantly at times - between different disciplines. The criteria for the degree to which the technical illustrator is free take liberty varies, depending upon the application. > Features which are often so subtle that they are not adequately > represented in any photograph of the same subject. And yet, in some disciplines the reverse occurs with too much regularity to be so simplistically disregarded. Because technical illustrations invariably center around a certain perspective and understanding at the time of its creation, as soon as a new & different question is raised, said technical illustration may very well become obsolete overnight. The same can also true of a technical photograph, of course, but they tend to be a bit more salvageable. > This CANNOT be done in a photograph because it wholly depends > on the interpretation of the observer and what human values and knowledge > about the subject that needs to be applied to that illustration. Actually, its not necessarily impossible (I've done it). In simple form, that element of 'subject knowledge' merely needs to be applied before the documenting photograph is taken. For example, a technique very commonly used by both Hollywood & Human Researchers with equipment such as the Vicon brand of motion capture cameras is to install reference targets at each major body joint of interest on the test subject. There's similar techniques for when using a Vision Research high speed camera for analysis. > Photography will never, and should never, replace the technical > illustrator. They are two completely different methods for two completely > different worlds and purposes of observation and understanding. I didn't say that it can, or should, so I can agree (at least partially). A craftsman's toolbox always contains more than just one tool, and photography is merely yet another tool in the toolbox. Like all the tools in that toolbox, it is only for application when it is appropriate as the right tool for the task at hand. When the task changes, change tools. > These photographs are an absurd mix of both worlds that fail to be of any > value in either world. A year's worth of images for the circular file > cabinet. Disagree, for even if the intent of these photos was far more artistic than technical, because of how they were taken, I can see some technical value in them with which to pick off key details to advance knowledge in certain study areas. For example, consider the fact that an Audubon-style technical illustration is utterly incapable of providing a researcher with the exact wingfoil shape used by an avian in a particular segment of its flight, and then look again at these illustrations. Now decide for yourself if you could get that information without ever "resorting" to photography at any point. And yet (while getting back to the OP), I personally also find the photos in question to also be aesthetically pleasing, so if the original intent had been art, I'd say that he was at least successful for my personal tastes. Granted, it is undoubtedly a different style, but being different doesn't automatically make it wrong...if that was the case, then we would have never gotten to Impressionism, or Pointillism, or Abstract, or many other recognized art forms. -hh
From: Val Hallah on 10 Jul 2010 08:30 On Jul 10, 12:23 pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > James Nagler <jnag...(a)spamproofed.net> wrote: > > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > > >One could argue that these are strictly scientific / technical > > >images ... however, in looking at comparable works that are now > > >considered to be Artful as well as informative, we find Audubon's: > > > >http://www.audubon.org/bird/BoA/images/originals/00344p1.gif > > > >Note the use again of white backgrounds. > > > >Similarly, while some of Audubon's images illustrate spread wings and > > >the like, the technology limitations of the day were such that John > > >Audubon often worked with freshly killed birds as his models, so these > > >illustrations were static representations of what he *believed* he was > > >observing in living, moving specimens. Zuckerman's approach simply > > >applies the works of "Doc" Harold "Papa Flash" Edgerton to eliminate > > >the human-based estimation and give us a blink of actual reality. > > >Just as Edgerton's works did, such as his "Making Applesauce at MIT": > > > >http://listart.mit.edu/files/edgerton.jpg > > > Discarding that "human based estimation" is an error of maximum > > proportions, an idea suggested by someone completely ignorant to the > > purpose of the technical illustration. > > On the contrary: the question of if it is "right" or "wrong" depends > significantly on the reason why you're doing what you're doing. For > example, Audubon's method lacks the ability to accurately determine > certain non-static factors, such as velocity. > > > You need to learn the difference between technical illustrations and > > photography. > > My apologies, but please understand that even after reading your post > through multiple times, it is my impression is that you're taking an > extremely narrow view on the potential scientific/technical value of > these photos -and- that you seem to believe that these photos were > exclusively intended to be technically only. > > Please note that despite your defensiveness, I never claimed that this > style of photography was going to replace technical illustration. All > I said was that technical illustration (and in particular, its form) > is not precluded from also being aesthetically "pretty". > > > There's a reason that technical drawing is still, and always will be, > > of more importance to the researcher than photography ever will be. > > "Never say never" :-) For the very reason that we identify the two as > distinct means also that they are two different tools and as such, the > one can never completely usurp the other. Similarly, this also means > that claims of hierarchy are invariably situationally dependent and > never absolutist. > > > One of the first things you will learn in any course about biology or > > microbiology is how to do (or at least comprehend why it is important) a > > technical illustration of what you are observing. The technical illustrator > > intentionally highlights or makes more apparent those features of the > > subject that delineate its identity or specialization apart from all > > similar subjects based on human perceptions. > > Yes, but Biology is merely but one scientific discipline. > > While the basic principles for technical illustration and > documentation follow common basic principles (as you mention), the > techniques and standards followed do vary - significantly at times - > between different disciplines. The criteria for the degree to which > the technical illustrator is free take liberty varies, depending upon > the application. > > > Features which are often so subtle that they are not adequately > > represented in any photograph of the same subject. > > And yet, in some disciplines the reverse occurs with too much > regularity to be so simplistically disregarded. > > Because technical illustrations invariably center around a certain > perspective and understanding at the time of its creation, as soon as > a new & different question is raised, said technical illustration may > very well become obsolete overnight. The same can also true of a > technical photograph, of course, but they tend to be a bit more > salvageable. > > > This CANNOT be done in a photograph because it wholly depends > > on the interpretation of the observer and what human values and knowledge > > about the subject that needs to be applied to that illustration. > > Actually, its not necessarily impossible (I've done it). In simple > form, that element of 'subject knowledge' merely needs to be applied > before the documenting photograph is taken. > > For example, a technique very commonly used by both Hollywood & Human > Researchers with equipment such as the Vicon brand of motion capture > cameras is to install reference targets at each major body joint of > interest on the test subject. There's similar techniques for when > using a Vision Research high speed camera for analysis. > > > Photography will never, and should never, replace the technical > > illustrator. They are two completely different methods for two completely > > different worlds and purposes of observation and understanding. > > I didn't say that it can, or should, so I can agree (at least > partially). > > A craftsman's toolbox always contains more than just one tool, and > photography is merely yet another tool in the toolbox. Like all the > tools in that toolbox, it is only for application when it is > appropriate as the right tool for the task at hand. When the task > changes, change tools. > > > These photographs are an absurd mix of both worlds that fail to be of any > > value in either world. A year's worth of images for the circular file > > cabinet. > > Disagree, for even if the intent of these photos was far more artistic > than technical, because of how they were taken, I can see some > technical value in them with which to pick off key details to advance > knowledge in certain study areas. > > For example, consider the fact that an Audubon-style technical > illustration is utterly incapable of providing a researcher with the > exact wingfoil shape used by an avian in a particular segment of its > flight, and then look again at these illustrations. Now decide for > yourself if you could get that information without ever "resorting" to > photography at any point. > > And yet (while getting back to the OP), I personally also find the > photos in question to also be aesthetically pleasing, so if the > original intent had been art, I'd say that he was at least successful > for my personal tastes. Granted, it is undoubtedly a different style, > but being different doesn't automatically make it wrong...if that was > the case, then we would have never gotten to Impressionism, or > Pointillism, or Abstract, or many other recognized art forms. > > -hh well said......Nagler has been duly spanked
From: George Kerby on 10 Jul 2010 10:42 On 7/10/10 7:30 AM, in article e9c24f03-2a8f-4c83-b479-abaa5f0f3182(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, "Val Hallah" <michaelnewport(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 12:23�pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >> James Nagler <jnag...(a)spamproofed.net> wrote: >>> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >> >>>> One could argue that these are strictly scientific / technical >>>> images ... however, in looking at comparable works that are now >>>> considered to be Artful as well as informative, we find Audubon's: >> >>>> http://www.audubon.org/bird/BoA/images/originals/00344p1.gif >> >>>> Note the use again of white backgrounds. >> >>>> Similarly, while some of Audubon's images illustrate spread wings and >>>> the like, the technology limitations of the day were such that John >>>> Audubon often worked with freshly killed birds as his models, so these >>>> illustrations were static representations of what he *believed* he was >>>> observing in living, moving specimens. �Zuckerman's approach simply >>>> applies the works of �"Doc" Harold "Papa Flash" Edgerton to eliminate >>>> the human-based estimation and give us a blink of actual reality. >>>> Just as Edgerton's works did, such as his "Making Applesauce at MIT": >> >>>> http://listart.mit.edu/files/edgerton.jpg >> >>> Discarding that "human based estimation" is an error of maximum >>> proportions, an idea suggested by someone completely ignorant to the >>> purpose of the technical illustration. >> >> On the contrary: �the question of if it is "right" or "wrong" depends >> significantly on the reason why you're doing what you're doing. � For >> example, Audubon's method lacks the ability to accurately determine >> certain non-static factors, such as velocity. >> >>> You need to learn the difference between technical illustrations and >>> photography. >> >> My apologies, but please understand that even after reading your post >> through multiple times, it is my impression is that you're taking an >> extremely narrow view on the potential scientific/technical value of >> these photos -and- that you seem to believe that these photos were >> exclusively intended to be technically only. >> >> Please note that despite your defensiveness, I never claimed that this >> style of photography was going to replace technical illustration. �All >> I said was that technical illustration (and in particular, its form) >> is not precluded from also being aesthetically "pretty". >> >>> There's a reason that technical drawing is still, and always will be, >>> of more importance to the researcher than photography ever will be. >> >> "Never say never" :-) �For the very reason that we identify the two as >> distinct means also that they are two different tools and as such, the >> one can never completely usurp the other. �Similarly, this also means >> that claims of hierarchy are invariably situationally dependent and >> never absolutist. >> >>> One of the first things you will learn in any course about biology or >>> microbiology is how to do (or at least comprehend why it is important) a >>> technical illustration of what you are observing. �The technical illustrator >>> intentionally highlights or makes more apparent those features of the >>> subject that delineate its identity or specialization apart from all >>> similar subjects based on human perceptions. >> >> Yes, but Biology is merely but one scientific discipline. >> >> While the basic principles for technical illustration and >> documentation follow common basic principles (as you mention), the >> techniques and standards followed do vary - significantly at times - >> between different disciplines. � The criteria for the degree to which >> the technical illustrator is free take liberty varies, depending upon >> the application. >> >>> Features which are often so subtle that they are not adequately >>> represented in any photograph of the same subject. >> >> And yet, in some disciplines the reverse occurs with too much >> regularity to be so simplistically disregarded. >> >> Because technical illustrations invariably center around a certain >> perspective and understanding at the time of its creation, as soon as >> a new & different question is raised, said technical illustration may >> very well become obsolete overnight. �The same can also true of a >> technical photograph, of course, but they tend to be a bit more >> salvageable. >> >>> This CANNOT be done in a photograph because it wholly depends >>> on the interpretation of the observer and what human values and knowledge >>> about the subject that needs to be applied to that illustration. >> >> Actually, its not necessarily impossible (I've done it). �In simple >> form, that element of 'subject knowledge' merely needs to be applied >> before the documenting photograph is taken. >> >> For example, a technique very commonly used by both Hollywood & Human >> Researchers with equipment such as the Vicon brand of motion capture >> cameras is to install reference targets at each major body joint of >> interest on the test subject. �There's similar techniques for when >> using a Vision Research high speed camera for analysis. >> >>> Photography will never, and should never, replace the technical >>> illustrator. They are two completely different methods for two completely >>> different worlds and purposes of observation and understanding. >> >> I didn't say that it can, or should, so I can agree (at least >> partially). >> >> A craftsman's toolbox always contains more than just one tool, and >> photography is merely yet another tool in the toolbox. �Like all the >> tools in that toolbox, it is only for application when it is >> appropriate as the right tool for the task at hand. �When the task >> changes, change tools. >> >>> These photographs are an absurd mix of both worlds that fail to be of any >>> value in either world. A year's worth of images for the circular file >>> cabinet. >> >> Disagree, for even if the intent of these photos was far more artistic >> than technical, because of how they were taken, I can see some >> technical value in them with which to pick off key details to advance >> knowledge in certain study areas. >> >> For example, consider the fact that an Audubon-style technical >> illustration is utterly incapable of providing a researcher with the >> exact wingfoil shape used by an avian in a particular segment of its >> flight, and then look again at these illustrations. �Now decide for >> yourself if you could get that information without ever "resorting" to >> photography at any point. >> >> And yet (while getting back to the OP), I personally also find the >> photos in question to also be aesthetically pleasing, so if the >> original intent had been art, I'd say that he was at least successful >> for my personal tastes. �Granted, it is undoubtedly a different style, >> but being different doesn't automatically make it wrong...if that was >> the case, then we would have never gotten to Impressionism, or >> Pointillism, or Abstract, or many other recognized art forms. >> >> -hh > > well said......Nagler has been duly spanked Spanking the Resident Troll is no big deal...
From: -hh on 10 Jul 2010 17:23
James Nagler <jnag...(a)spamproofed.net> wrote: > > I have plenty of identification guides with technical illustrations that > show the wing-foil shape of bird species in various stages of their > behaviors. The typical "top view" illustrates the sweep angle, mostly. Unfortunately, that's not the wingfoil shape I was referring to: I was referring to the chord and cross-sectional camber which are significant contributors to lift & drag. But I'm willing to take a look at what you claim. Please provide the titles, author's names and ISBNs. I'll see if any are already within my identification collection. -hh |