Do lenses work like shadows?
No?
Just a guess
Not really
Clearly it is no. However, in the darkroom one can use shadows to assist in post processing.
dv said:
Not really
Blinks.
That answer is about 2x longer than expected.
Or 3.5 x longer by letter count.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Not really
Blinks.
That answer is about 2x longer than expected.
Or 3.5 x longer by letter count.
Whatever you do don’t blink
CrazyNeutrino said:
Do lenses work like shadows?
The knee-jerk reaction is “no”, but let’s think about this for a moment.
An atom has a smaller diameter than a wavelength, but does cast a shadow. The edge of a shadow is a diffraction. Diffraction alters the angle at which light travels. The change in angle results in a bulk slowing of the forwards velocity of light. Refraction can be defined as the result of the bulk slowing of light in the forwards direction. Lenses work solely by refraction.
So “yes”, lenses work like shadows.
An alternative way of looking at the same thing is to think of light as an electromagnetic wave that alters the shape of the electron orbital around an atom, this change in shape then re-radiates light forwards, resulting in a small time delay. The small time delay slows the bulk velocity of light through the medium resulting in refraction and hence lenses. But the same phenomena also occurs at the edges of shadows and there leads to diffraction.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/ref-diff.html
Refraction and Diffraction
I once heard a photographer say that photography is the art of capturing shadows…
Arts said:
I once heard a photographer say that photography is the art of capturing shadows…
http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/4698/photographing-perfect-shadow/
Aren’t photographers redundant and are basically their to hold the camera and press the button, the camera does all the work
Cymek said:
Aren’t photographers redundant and are basically their to hold the camera and press the button, the camera does all the work
It can be so but such people who rely always upon what the camera thinks, cannot really call themselves photographers.
Sure cameras are smart these days and can easily give any person confidence in their ability to point and shoot. However photography is as much about art and technique as it ever has been.
http://fffsforums.com/index.php?sid=04629ee4bce33afe9076b4dd1c1fc4c3
Light and dark.. 
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
Aren’t photographers redundant and are basically their to hold the camera and press the button, the camera does all the workIt can be so but such people who rely always upon what the camera thinks, cannot really call themselves photographers.
Sure cameras are smart these days and can easily give any person confidence in their ability to point and shoot. However photography is as much about art and technique as it ever has been.
I was stirring hence the runaway man picture
My in-laws are both photographers. They are very serious about it and have their own studio at home and take an extended overseas photography tour at least once a year.
FIL is the technical photographer. He has read all the theory, knows his camera like the back of his hand and has more equipment than many professional photographers do.
MIL is an artist.
Guess who consistently takes the better photos? Yes, it’s the MIL. She sees the things that most of us don’t and luckily for her, her camera now takes up the slack where her technical ability is lacking.
roughbarked said:
Light and dark.. !http://www.nellevision.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/lace-car.jpg
DIY crumple zones.
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
Aren’t photographers redundant and are basically their to hold the camera and press the button, the camera does all the workIt can be so but such people who rely always upon what the camera thinks, cannot really call themselves photographers.
Sure cameras are smart these days and can easily give any person confidence in their ability to point and shoot. However photography is as much about art and technique as it ever has been.
I was stirring hence the runaway man picture
Knew dat. ;) which is why I removed the image from the reply. ;)
Speedy said:
My in-laws are both photographers. They are very serious about it and have their own studio at home and take an extended overseas photography tour at least once a year.FIL is the technical photographer. He has read all the theory, knows his camera like the back of his hand and has more equipment than many professional photographers do.
MIL is an artist.
Guess who consistently takes the better photos? Yes, it’s the MIL. She sees the things that most of us don’t and luckily for her, her camera now takes up the slack where her technical ability is lacking.
I’ve long used the camera to paint with. The eye sees what is in the viewfinder and compensates the framing, the composition the views of light and shadow, the impact of the expression and etc.
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:It can be so but such people who rely always upon what the camera thinks, cannot really call themselves photographers.
Sure cameras are smart these days and can easily give any person confidence in their ability to point and shoot. However photography is as much about art and technique as it ever has been.
I was stirring hence the runaway man picture
Knew dat. ;) which is why I removed the image from the reply. ;)
I’m always impressed by the photos people on this forum take
Speedy said:
roughbarked said:
Light and dark.. !http://www.nellevision.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/lace-car.jpg
DIY crumple zones.
Well, they were big strong trucks. ;)
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:I was stirring hence the runaway man picture
Knew dat. ;) which is why I removed the image from the reply. ;)
I’m always impressed by the photos people on this forum take
If that includes me, I thank you for your interest.
mollwollfumble said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Do lenses work like shadows?
The knee-jerk reaction is “no”, but let’s think about this for a moment.
An atom has a smaller diameter than a wavelength, but does cast a shadow. The edge of a shadow is a diffraction. Diffraction alters the angle at which light travels. The change in angle results in a bulk slowing of the forwards velocity of light. Refraction can be defined as the result of the bulk slowing of light in the forwards direction. Lenses work solely by refraction.
So “yes”, lenses work like shadows.
An alternative way of looking at the same thing is to think of light as an electromagnetic wave that alters the shape of the electron orbital around an atom, this change in shape then re-radiates light forwards, resulting in a small time delay. The small time delay slows the bulk velocity of light through the medium resulting in refraction and hence lenses. But the same phenomena also occurs at the edges of shadows and there leads to diffraction.
I’m still having trouble equating the statement “working like”.
Capturing edges, makes more sense.
Will cameras/tv’s get to point were the image is as good as reality or even better as our eyes may be limited by the rod/cones they contain and the brains ability to process/interpret the image
Cymek said:
Will cameras/tv’s get to point were the image is as good as reality or even better as our eyes may be limited by the rod/cones they contain and the brains ability to process/interpret the image
Say again?
the artist needs to learn the camera, the tech expert already knows it.. it’s easier to teach the tech side than the art part… some people, while having technically beautiful photos, fall very short on subject and story telling. And, as Speedy said what the photographer lacks in tech savvy, most cameras can compensate for… there’s no compensating for artistic expression. Still, art is a fickle, fragile and often personal thing and I have always believed that the camera takes the photo no more than the keyboard writes the story.. you need a nice balance of both
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
Will cameras/tv’s get to point were the image is as good as reality or even better as our eyes may be limited by the rod/cones they contain and the brains ability to process/interpret the image
Say again?
Humans interpretation of the real world is limited by our eyes capability and our brains ability to process this input. Does a lot more exist which we are unaware of because of these limits and its something a camera could capture. In regards to television if you had an image on tv captured by the world best quality camera would it match what you see by looking at the same image with your eyes.
Sensor ability is already further advanced than can be reproduced on any display / print medium.
Dropbear said:
Sensor ability is already further advanced than can be reproduced on any display / print medium.
Ok that interesting.
Arts said:
the artist needs to learn the camera, the tech expert already knows it.. it’s easier to teach the tech side than the art part… some people, while having technically beautiful photos, fall very short on subject and story telling. And, as Speedy said what the photographer lacks in tech savvy, most cameras can compensate for… there’s no compensating for artistic expression. Still, art is a fickle, fragile and often personal thing and I have always believed that the camera takes the photo no more than the keyboard writes the story.. you need a nice balance of both
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
Will cameras/tv’s get to point were the image is as good as reality or even better as our eyes may be limited by the rod/cones they contain and the brains ability to process/interpret the image
Say again?
Humans interpretation of the real world is limited by our eyes capability and our brains ability to process this input. Does a lot more exist which we are unaware of because of these limits and its something a camera could capture. In regards to television if you had an image on tv captured by the world best quality camera would it match what you see by looking at the same image with your eyes.
The camera rarely sees it as the eye does.
Dropbear said:
Sensor ability is already further advanced than can be reproduced on any display / print medium.
Yep.
I assume the original idea of a camera was to capture moments in time as when see them and then later it was realised various techniques, lenses etc can extend this ability to far exceed anything our eyes can see. We know are now developing the ability to give our eyes (via technology) the capacity to do similar things the cameras can do, ie contact lenses with a zoom function
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:Say again?
Humans interpretation of the real world is limited by our eyes capability and our brains ability to process this input. Does a lot more exist which we are unaware of because of these limits and its something a camera could capture. In regards to television if you had an image on tv captured by the world best quality camera would it match what you see by looking at the same image with your eyes.
The camera rarely sees it as the eye does.
Ok
Cymek said:
I assume the original idea of a camera was to capture moments in time as when see them and then later it was realised various techniques, lenses etc can extend this ability to far exceed anything our eyes can see. We know are now developing the ability to give our eyes (via technology) the capacity to do similar things the cameras can do, ie contact lenses with a zoom function
add b+w rgb filtering, effects, infrared, ultra violet
zooming will be great, and variable focus
if they can build in a miniature wifi/Bluetooth to a lens then capture will be available
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:
I assume the original idea of a camera was to capture moments in time as when see them and then later it was realised various techniques, lenses etc can extend this ability to far exceed anything our eyes can see. We know are now developing the ability to give our eyes (via technology) the capacity to do similar things the cameras can do, ie contact lenses with a zoom function
add b+w rgb filtering, effects, infrared, ultra violet
zooming will be great, and variable focus
if they can build in a miniature wifi/Bluetooth to a lens then capture will be available
I always imagined that a lens/mike which captured all that I saw and heard in real time is embedded in my head my trouble has always been with the playback.
roughbarked said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:
I assume the original idea of a camera was to capture moments in time as when see them and then later it was realised various techniques, lenses etc can extend this ability to far exceed anything our eyes can see. We know are now developing the ability to give our eyes (via technology) the capacity to do similar things the cameras can do, ie contact lenses with a zoom function
add b+w rgb filtering, effects, infrared, ultra violet
zooming will be great, and variable focus
if they can build in a miniature wifi/Bluetooth to a lens then capture will be available
I always imagined that a lens/mike which captured all that I saw and heard in real time is embedded in my head my trouble has always been with the playback.
this may help
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-12/nano-memory-brings-bionic-brain-one-step-closer/6462084
Imagine a totally separate analog memory chip implanted at birth and can last a lifetime and can store a lifetime of all perceptions
and playback is no problem, playback of dreams as well, that dream I had at 4:32am, that sunset I was looking at last year in Oct. which day was it, searches, found it
imagine being able to fast forward and it looks just the same as real time
imagine being able to share all your perceptions and read others
CrazyNeutrino said:
roughbarked said:
CrazyNeutrino said:add b+w rgb filtering, effects, infrared, ultra violet
zooming will be great, and variable focus
if they can build in a miniature wifi/Bluetooth to a lens then capture will be available
I always imagined that a lens/mike which captured all that I saw and heard in real time is embedded in my head my trouble has always been with the playback.
this may help
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-12/nano-memory-brings-bionic-brain-one-step-closer/6462084
Imagine a totally separate analog memory chip implanted at birth and can last a lifetime and can store a lifetime of all perceptions
and playback is no problem, playback of dreams as well, that dream I had at 4:32am, that sunset I was looking at last year in Oct. which day was it, searches, found it
imagine being able to fast forward and it looks just the same as real time
imagine being able to share all your perceptions and read others
And I imagine real time interpretation of images you look at a car it tells you the make/model
Cymek said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
roughbarked said:I always imagined that a lens/mike which captured all that I saw and heard in real time is embedded in my head my trouble has always been with the playback.
this may help
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-12/nano-memory-brings-bionic-brain-one-step-closer/6462084
Imagine a totally separate analog memory chip implanted at birth and can last a lifetime and can store a lifetime of all perceptions
and playback is no problem, playback of dreams as well, that dream I had at 4:32am, that sunset I was looking at last year in Oct. which day was it, searches, found it
imagine being able to fast forward and it looks just the same as real time
imagine being able to share all your perceptions and read others
And I imagine real time interpretation of images you look at a car it tells you the make/model
Our brains do it all. Managing to record it as we do in our individual brains, is something we have yet to achieve.
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
CrazyNeutrino said:this may help
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-12/nano-memory-brings-bionic-brain-one-step-closer/6462084
Imagine a totally separate analog memory chip implanted at birth and can last a lifetime and can store a lifetime of all perceptions
and playback is no problem, playback of dreams as well, that dream I had at 4:32am, that sunset I was looking at last year in Oct. which day was it, searches, found it
imagine being able to fast forward and it looks just the same as real time
imagine being able to share all your perceptions and read others
And I imagine real time interpretation of images you look at a car it tells you the make/model
Our brains do it all. Managing to record it as we do in our individual brains, is something we have yet to achieve.
I was thinking with it superimposed over your vision as text similar to the Terminator, so if you happen to be walking around naked you can get a perfect match for clothes that fit you
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:And I imagine real time interpretation of images you look at a car it tells you the make/model
Our brains do it all. Managing to record it as we do in our individual brains, is something we have yet to achieve.
I was thinking with it superimposed over your vision as text similar to the Terminator, so if you happen to be walking around naked you can get a perfect match for clothes that fit you
the ability to turn on or off superimposed real time information would be good