Re: birds

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by -hh, Jul 9, 2010.

  1. -hh

    -hh Guest

    On Jul 8, 2:51 pm, James Nagler <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1293029/Birds-Andre...

    >
    > Every last one of them looks like artificial crap.


    And yet it isn't fake at all: it merely different from what one
    nominally expects to see.


    > What a fuckin' waste of everyone's time.


    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


    > This "emperor" is not just naked, he's gone totally insane as well.


    Bottom line to all of this is that just because something might have
    started - or primarily been intended - as scientific in nature,
    doesn't automatically preclude it from being artistically pleasing.

    And anytime that one of us chooses a particular camera setting to do
    anything - - ie, a shutter speed to either freeze motion OR to blur
    it, or the addition of a strobe - - we are manipulating the results
    with the "scientific" elements of our equipment. Its most likely in
    order to achieve a certain desired end effect to achieve some distinct
    objective or goal, which means that we're doing exactly the same thing
    as Zuckerman, but just merely at a different level.


    -hh
    -hh, Jul 9, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -hh

    -hh Guest

    James Nagler <> wrote:
    > -hh <> 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
    -hh, Jul 10, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. -hh

    James Nagler Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 05:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
    <> wrote:

    >On Jul 10, 12:23 pm, -hh <> wrote:
    >> James Nagler <> wrote:
    >> > -hh <> 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.


    I have plenty of identification guides with technical illustrations that
    show the wing-foil shape of bird species in various stages of their
    behaviors. In fact that is used to more easily identify certain species
    from a distance. E.g. Black Vulture vs. Turkey Vulture, or Crow vs. Raven.

    I guess you have never seen any drawings done by Da Vinci either (hint: he
    never had access to any camera). That out of touch, are you?

    >>
    >> 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


    Not at all, moron. He's just desperately trying to find some kind of value
    in the totally wasted year of a man's life where none really exists.
    James Nagler, Jul 10, 2010
    #3
  4. -hh

    -hh Guest

    James Nagler <> 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
    -hh, Jul 10, 2010
    #4
  5. -hh

    James Nagler Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:23:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh
    <> wrote:

    >James Nagler <> 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.
    >


    I'm not talking about any "top view" illustration. The silhouettes that you
    speak of are usually always published for Falconiformes, Anseriformes, and
    Charadriiformes. The cross-sectional angle at which birds hold their wings
    while gliding or flapping, even their "dipping" flight patterns, are used
    for identification aids in many identification guides. It sounds more and
    more like you don't have any identification guides at all nor even bothered
    to read any at all during your life. Nearly all of them include this
    information about species where it becomes relevant to help differentiate
    them from similar species.

    To top it off you can't tell the cross-sectional chord shape of any birds
    wings from the painfully sterile photographs that you are trying to find
    the least bit of value in.

    >But I'm willing to take a look at what you claim.


    No you're not, you're just trying to waste my time. You just proved that.
    I.e. TROLL.

    >
    >Please provide the titles, author's names and ISBNs. I'll see if any
    >are already within my identification collection.
    >


    You don't own ANY. Let me guess, you have a tattered copy of some child's
    "The BLUE Book of Birds of America" somewhere. But lost your "Red", "Green"
    and "Yellow" volumes from the series.
    James Nagler, Jul 10, 2010
    #5
  6. -hh

    -hh Guest

    James Nagler <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:23:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >James Nagler <> 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.

    >
    > I'm not talking about any "top view" illustration. The silhouettes that you
    > speak of are usually always published for Falconiformes, Anseriformes, and
    > Charadriiformes. The cross-sectional angle at which birds hold their wings
    > while gliding or flapping, even their "dipping" flight patterns, are used
    > for identification aids in many identification guides.


    Yes, these are the 'sweep angles' I was referring to ... and which I
    had specifically excluded.

    > It sounds more and
    > more like you don't have any identification guides at all nor even bothered
    > to read any at all during your life...


    <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/tanzania/YA_raptor_ID.jpg>


    > To top it off you can't tell the cross-sectional chord shape of any birds
    > wings from the painfully sterile photographs that you are trying to find
    > the least bit of value in.


    Their form is faithful to how this research *was* done.


    > >But I'm willing to take a look at what you claim.

    >
    > No you're not, you're just trying to waste my time.


    Simply providing the titles, author's names and ISBNs (as was
    requested) would have wasted far less of your time, which you've
    instead chosen to squander with your pontificating.



    -hh
    -hh, Jul 11, 2010
    #6
  7. -hh

    -hh Guest

    Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    > I've used photography to pick out things ranging from particular wheel
    > marks in tangle of skid marks; subtle features in the wear pattern on
    > a (large) marine engine bearing which showed that it was loose before
    > the engine dismantled itself; smoke patterns on a wall to identify the
    > original point of ignition. Sure you can draw something to make these
    > points but its much more convincing if you can make the relevant
    > details stand out from a photograph.
    >
    > By they way, I can draw too.


    Well said, although unfortunately, the resident Nymshifting Troll of
    <rec.photo.digital> (currently "Truman") can't be bothered to listen
    or learn. He's merely angry and jealous of others.

    As has been said earlier in this thread:

    "... the question of if it is "right" or "wrong" depends significantly
    on the reason why you're doing what you're doing....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."

    And in regards to the OP's photos, I'll say this again: 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
    -hh, Mar 4, 2011
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Birds or Mozilla?

    , Jul 5, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,289
  2. penguins are the best birds

    , Apr 19, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    691
    GuidoS
    Apr 21, 2005
  3. x@y

    The Birds & the Bees:

    x@y, May 18, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    937
  4. Guest

    Birds Of A Feather-----

    Guest, May 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    470
    Guest
    May 10, 2004
  5. John Llort

    birds,cats and kids

    John Llort, May 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    350
    stewy
    May 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page