Astronomers pinpoint the moment Ansel Adams clicked the sh..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Astronomers have pinpointed the moment Ansel Adams clicked the shutter
on his famous photograph, Autumn Moon, the High Sierra from Glacier
Point. It was taken on 15 September 1948, at 1903 precisely.

Don Olson, at Texas State University, San Marcos, US, and colleagues
used a combination of lunar tables, maps, weather records and
planetarium software to establish the moment, which had been in doubt.

Although Adams was meticulous about recording the technical details of
his shots, film types, lens settings, exposure speeds and so on, he was
terrible at recording times and places. Some commentators had thought
the shot dated from 1944."

Rest of the article at

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7888

The image
http://www.newscientist.com/data/i [...] -1_700.jpg

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Faaaascinating! And I am sure it will change the history of photography
forever./.

denny
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124975703.200259.245840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> "Astronomers have pinpointed the moment Ansel Adams clicked the shutter
> on his famous photograph, Autumn Moon, the High Sierra from Glacier
> Point. It was taken on 15 September 1948, at 1903 precisely.
>
> Don Olson, at Texas State University, San Marcos, US, and colleagues
> used a combination of lunar tables, maps, weather records and
> planetarium software to establish the moment, which had been in doubt.
>
> Although Adams was meticulous about recording the technical details of
> his shots, film types, lens settings, exposure speeds and so on, he was
> terrible at recording times and places. Some commentators had thought
> the shot dated from 1944."
>
> Rest of the article at
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7888
>
> The image
> http://www.newscientist.com/data/i [...] -1_700.jpg
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"The exact conditions of Ansel Adams' famous photograph are about to
reoccur"

Oh god. The place will be crawling with every Ansel Adams wannabee and
his SUV.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have convinced myself that Van Gogh was myopic, in the ballpark of
-4.5 diopters. I cannot believe anything other than, he was painting
textures as he saw them. Obviously he was using an impressionistic
style as well, but I believe he was applying an impressionistic style
to something else, a *realistic* style where he was painting the world
as he saw it. Fuzzy, in a well defined way. Rings around night sky
objects. That sort of thing.

When I look at Van Gogh's work before he was exposed to impressionism,
I see this phenomenon in his realistic style as well.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <uLedncm6Xr0DyZPeRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, weg9@comcast.net
says...
>
> "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125011892.559787.176390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I have convinced myself that Van Gogh was myopic, in the ballpark of
> > -4.5 diopters. I cannot believe anything other than, he was painting
> > textures as he saw them. Obviously he was using an impressionistic
> > style as well, but I believe he was applying an impressionistic style
> > to something else, a *realistic* style where he was painting the world
> > as he saw it. Fuzzy, in a well defined way. Rings around night sky
> > objects. That sort of thing.
> >
> > When I look at Van Gogh's work before he was exposed to impressionism,
> > I see this phenomenon in his realistic style as well.
> >
>
> Van Gogh was born in 1853, and died in 1890, so he did have access to
> eyeglasses, which were invented over 100 years before. Also, when he looked
> at his canvas, he saw it with the same eyes he did when he looked at his
> subject, so we can presume that he painted what he saw, as he wanted it to
> look.
>
>
>

People even today resist wearing eyeglasses/contacts, and even resist
getting eye exams.

I can only theorize that the problem was even worse in the last half of
the 19th century.

I, myself am Myopic to the point that my vision, without corrective
lenses, shows me a night sky that looks very much like a Van Gogh
painting.(about -4 diopter @ infinity - 0 + 0 @ 6 FT (thus graduated
lenses are a "miracle" for me)).

Since Myopia (at least in my case) doesnt make my near vision distorted,
a painting (or photo) of the night sky on an easle wouldnt look the same
as the night sky does (because of the distance).

Thoght I wont go so far as to agree with the theory that Van Goghs
vision problem resulted in his style of painting, I cant argue against
it either, because it isnt likely he would have known he needed glasses
(there wasnt any requirement for him to have an eye exam) so he might
have assumed his vision was the same as the rest of the world
population.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry Lynch" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d782740c68811b4989695@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <uLedncm6Xr0DyZPeRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, weg9@comcast.net
> says...
>>
>> "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1125011892.559787.176390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >I have convinced myself that Van Gogh was myopic, in the ballpark of
>> > -4.5 diopters. I cannot believe anything other than, he was painting
>> > textures as he saw them. Obviously he was using an impressionistic
>> > style as well, but I believe he was applying an impressionistic style
>> > to something else, a *realistic* style where he was painting the world
>> > as he saw it. Fuzzy, in a well defined way. Rings around night sky
>> > objects. That sort of thing.
>> >
>> > When I look at Van Gogh's work before he was exposed to impressionism,
>> > I see this phenomenon in his realistic style as well.
>> >
>>
>> Van Gogh was born in 1853, and died in 1890, so he did have access to
>> eyeglasses, which were invented over 100 years before. Also, when he
>> looked
>> at his canvas, he saw it with the same eyes he did when he looked at his
>> subject, so we can presume that he painted what he saw, as he wanted it
>> to
>> look.
>>
>>
>>
>
> People even today resist wearing eyeglasses/contacts, and even resist
> getting eye exams.
>
> I can only theorize that the problem was even worse in the last half of
> the 19th century.
>
> I, myself am Myopic to the point that my vision, without corrective
> lenses, shows me a night sky that looks very much like a Van Gogh
> painting.(about -4 diopter @ infinity - 0 + 0 @ 6 FT (thus graduated
> lenses are a "miracle" for me)).
>
> Since Myopia (at least in my case) doesnt make my near vision distorted,
> a painting (or photo) of the night sky on an easle wouldnt look the same
> as the night sky does (because of the distance).
>
> Thoght I wont go so far as to agree with the theory that Van Goghs
> vision problem resulted in his style of painting, I cant argue against
> it either, because it isnt likely he would have known he needed glasses
> (there wasnt any requirement for him to have an eye exam) so he might
> have assumed his vision was the same as the rest of the world
> population.
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

You may be right. There is no way we can know today.....I am reminded of an
art teacher I had once who said that Goya painted long skinny figures
because he was astigmatic. I knew immediately that that couldn't be correct,
because when he looked at his canvas, he would also see tall skinny figures,
so if he made his paintings look like what he saw, they would also look like
what everyone else saw. But, you know, I couldn't convince the teacher of
this, so, in order to avoid a battle that I couldn't possibly win (I needed
the grade) I let it drop.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry Lynch" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d78328fa14b2e2e989696@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <s8WdnZOecOSm-5PeRVn-qA@comcast.com>, weg9@comcast.net
> says...
>> You may be right. There is no way we can know today.....I am reminded of
>> an
>> art teacher I had once who said that Goya painted long skinny figures
>> because he was astigmatic. I knew immediately that that couldn't be
>> correct,
>> because when he looked at his canvas, he would also see tall skinny
>> figures,
>> so if he made his paintings look like what he saw, they would also look
>> like
>> what everyone else saw. But, you know, I couldn't convince the teacher of
>> this, so, in order to avoid a battle that I couldn't possibly win (I
>> needed
>> the grade) I let it drop.
>>
>
> Here I have to agree with you.
>
> Astigmatic aberation in vision is usually a "constant" AFAIK and only
> changes according to Pupil size (light levels) and can be lessened
> (somewhat) by squinting. The aberation is not affected (much) by
> distance, so the nearby canvas would appear, more or less, the same as
> the distant subject given the same distance.
> --
Yes. I have gotten into these kinds of arguments with the "experts" in a
field before. One of my favorites is the contention that Stonehenge was
constructed by ancient astronomers, because if you sight along the edges of
the stones today, you will see certain stars where they would have been in
the middle ages. I say, "Horsepuckey! All of these stones have settled into
the wet British soil over the years, so you can't possible know where they
were when the thing was built." But I still see learned articles that claim
it was an astronomical structure......

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:07:36 -0400, Larry Lynch
<larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>In article <uLedncm6Xr0DyZPeRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, weg9@comcast.net
>says...
>>
>> "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1125011892.559787.176390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >I have convinced myself that Van Gogh was myopic, in the ballpark of
>> > -4.5 diopters. I cannot believe anything other than, he was painting
>> > textures as he saw them. Obviously he was using an impressionistic
>> > style as well, but I believe he was applying an impressionistic style
>> > to something else, a *realistic* style where he was painting the world
>> > as he saw it. Fuzzy, in a well defined way. Rings around night sky
>> > objects. That sort of thing.
>> >
>> > When I look at Van Gogh's work before he was exposed to impressionism,
>> > I see this phenomenon in his realistic style as well.
>> >
>>
>> Van Gogh was born in 1853, and died in 1890, so he did have access to
>> eyeglasses, which were invented over 100 years before. Also, when he looked
>> at his canvas, he saw it with the same eyes he did when he looked at his
>> subject, so we can presume that he painted what he saw, as he wanted it to
>> look.
>>
>>

I've also heard that Giotto was supposed to have severe
astigmatism, due to the rather willowy figures he painted. I've not
doped out why this wasn't corrected by reversal when he painted. The
figures on canvas, if normally-proportioned (to a person with normal
sight0, would have apeared the same to him as his subjects.

However, I still can't map this line of reasoning as well to a
person wose vision is simply blurred.


>>
>
>People even today resist wearing eyeglasses/contacts, and even resist
>getting eye exams.
>
>I can only theorize that the problem was even worse in the last half of
>the 19th century.
>
>I, myself am Myopic to the point that my vision, without corrective
>lenses, shows me a night sky that looks very much like a Van Gogh
>painting.(about -4 diopter @ infinity - 0 + 0 @ 6 FT (thus graduated
>lenses are a "miracle" for me)).
>
>Since Myopia (at least in my case) doesnt make my near vision distorted,
>a painting (or photo) of the night sky on an easle wouldnt look the same
>as the night sky does (because of the distance).
>
>Thoght I wont go so far as to agree with the theory that Van Goghs
>vision problem resulted in his style of painting, I cant argue against
>it either, because it isnt likely he would have known he needed glasses
>(there wasnt any requirement for him to have an eye exam) so he might
>have assumed his vision was the same as the rest of the world
>population.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:noSdnZ2dnZ2kVl-dnZ2dna7uk96dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
>
> <kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:rjrsg1lb3rem2o2kt794dnk2bfir39fcpm@4ax.com...
>>
>> I've also heard that Giotto was supposed to have severe
>> astigmatism, due to the rather willowy figures he painted. I've not
>> doped out why this wasn't corrected by reversal when he painted. The
>> figures on canvas, if normally-proportioned (to a person with normal
>> sight0, would have apeared the same to him as his subjects.
>
> Of course. The same reasoning applies to the argument that all men see red
> as blue. (compared to all women) There would be no way to tell, (unless
> some physical difference could be detected inside the brain) since from
> birth, one learns the name of a color by others pointing at it and telling
> you what it's called...... Men would simply point to what women see as red
> and call it "red" too, even though inside their brains it would look to
> them the same as what women would call "blue".
>
>
Another example that comes to mind is that of the guy who made a pair of
glasses that turned everything upside down and backwards. After wearing them
for about a week, he could do everything that he could do before he put them
on. He could read and write, and even drive a car. On the other hand,
intelligence is a factor, because he made a small pair and put them on a
chicken. The chicken would have starved to death standing on a pile of grain
had he not removed the glasses. The poor creature never even learned how to
pick up a mouthful of food from the ground......

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:l6vPe.8866$Us5.4814@fed1read02...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:M2uPe.22962$hL3.124922@weber.videotron.net...
>> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>>
>>> Faaaascinating! And I am sure it will change the history of photography
>>> forever./.
>>
>> As mundane as it may seem, it did do exactly that.
>
> Ansel Adams did...but these calculations didn't.
>
> Interesting pursuit, though.

Ansel Adams changed photography - these calculations change the history of
photography.

--
Apteryx

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <uJmdnRfLJqJu95PeRVn-pg@comcast.com>, weg9@comcast.net
says...
>
> "Larry Lynch" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d78328fa14b2e2e989696@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> > In article <s8WdnZOecOSm-5PeRVn-qA@comcast.com>, weg9@comcast.net
> > says...
> >> You may be right. There is no way we can know today.....I am reminded of
> >> an
> >> art teacher I had once who said that Goya painted long skinny figures
> >> because he was astigmatic. I knew immediately that that couldn't be
> >> correct,
> >> because when he looked at his canvas, he would also see tall skinny
> >> figures,
> >> so if he made his paintings look like what he saw, they would also look
> >> like
> >> what everyone else saw. But, you know, I couldn't convince the teacher of
> >> this, so, in order to avoid a battle that I couldn't possibly win (I
> >> needed
> >> the grade) I let it drop.
> >>
> >
> > Here I have to agree with you.
> >
> > Astigmatic aberation in vision is usually a "constant" AFAIK and only
> > changes according to Pupil size (light levels) and can be lessened
> > (somewhat) by squinting. The aberation is not affected (much) by
> > distance, so the nearby canvas would appear, more or less, the same as
> > the distant subject given the same distance.
> > --
> Yes. I have gotten into these kinds of arguments with the "experts" in a
> field before. One of my favorites is the contention that Stonehenge was
> constructed by ancient astronomers, because if you sight along the edges of
> the stones today, you will see certain stars where they would have been in
> the middle ages. I say, "Horsepuckey! All of these stones have settled into
> the wet British soil over the years, so you can't possible know where they
> were when the thing was built." But I still see learned articles that claim
> it was an astronomical structure......

Watched a show on Discovery about Stonehenge a few weeks ago. Apparently
the circle was actually "restored" in recent history (in the 1800's
IIRC).

Personally I find pyramids far more interesting...

--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <noSdnZ2dnZ2kVl-dnZ2dna7uk96dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com>,
weg9@comcast.net says...
>
> <kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:rjrsg1lb3rem2o2kt794dnk2bfir39fcpm@4ax.com...
> >
> > I've also heard that Giotto was supposed to have severe
> > astigmatism, due to the rather willowy figures he painted. I've not
> > doped out why this wasn't corrected by reversal when he painted. The
> > figures on canvas, if normally-proportioned (to a person with normal
> > sight0, would have apeared the same to him as his subjects.
>
> Of course. The same reasoning applies to the argument that all men see red
> as blue. (compared to all women) There would be no way to tell, (unless some
> physical difference could be detected inside the brain) since from birth,
> one learns the name of a color by others pointing at it and telling you what
> it's called...... Men would simply point to what women see as red and call
> it "red" too, even though inside their brains it would look to them the same
> as what women would call "blue".

I've wondered about this myself, but surely physics must come into it?
The colour spectrum is simply lightwaves moving at different
frequencies, isn't it? The frequency of Red is a lot lower than that of
blue, so if we were seeing blue instead of red, logically we would see a
lot more of the colour spectrum than women can. But that's definitely
not true. Ask any woman!

I have a hard time telling certain greens from blues (torquoise??), but
that's because green and blue are much closer together in the spectrum
than red and blue.

--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:noSdnZ2dnZ2kVl-dnZ2dna7uk96dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
>
> <kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:rjrsg1lb3rem2o2kt794dnk2bfir39fcpm@4ax.com...
>>
>> I've also heard that Giotto was supposed to have severe
>> astigmatism, due to the rather willowy figures he painted. I've not
>> doped out why this wasn't corrected by reversal when he painted. The
>> figures on canvas, if normally-proportioned (to a person with normal
>> sight0, would have apeared the same to him as his subjects.
>
> Of course. The same reasoning applies to the argument that all men see red
> as blue. (compared to all women) There would be no way to tell, (unless
> some physical difference could be detected inside the brain) since from
> birth, one learns the name of a color by others pointing at it and telling
> you what it's called...... Men would simply point to what women see as red
> and call it "red" too, even though inside their brains it would look to
> them the same as what women would call "blue".

Ha!!

That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone other than myself who had
thought of, and/or wondered about that. I remember thinking of that out of
the blue many years ago.
Later, I decided in my head that it wouldn't work, since I *think* it would
follow that color-mixing would produce new colors that wouldn't jive with
both people's odd perceptions.

I think there might be some other light-related issues there...

-But it just tickles me to hear someone else utter this exact same
thought...

I'm thinking we may be related, William...

Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <uJmdnRfLJqJu95PeRVn-pg@comcast.com>, William Graham
<weg9@comcast.net> writes
>Yes. I have gotten into these kinds of arguments with the "experts" in a
>field before. One of my favorites is the contention that Stonehenge was
>constructed by ancient astronomers, because if you sight along the edges of
>the stones today, you will see certain stars where they would have been in
>the middle ages. I say, "Horsepuckey! All of these stones have settled into
>the wet British soil over the years, so you can't possible know where they
>were when the thing was built." But I still see learned articles that claim
>it was an astronomical structure......
>
>
I'm not surprised you get into arguments when you don't know the facts.

Not much of a geologist, are you? Stonehenge is built on chalk.

"Wet British soil"? If it's clichés you want, perhaps the rain dripping
from our bowlers makes the stones difficult to see, especially when
holding a cup of tea in a pea-souper.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter Twydell wrote:
> In message <uJmdnRfLJqJu95PeRVn-pg@comcast.com>, William Graham
> <weg9@comcast.net> writes
> >Yes. I have gotten into these kinds of arguments with the "experts" in a
> >field before. One of my favorites is the contention that Stonehenge was
> >constructed by ancient astronomers, because if you sight along the edges of
> >the stones today, you will see certain stars where they would have been in
> >the middle ages. I say, "Horsepuckey! All of these stones have settled into
> >the wet British soil over the years, so you can't possible know where they
> >were when the thing was built." But I still see learned articles that claim
> >it was an astronomical structure......
> >
> >
> I'm not surprised you get into arguments when you don't know the facts.
>
> Not much of a geologist, are you? Stonehenge is built on chalk.
>
> "Wet British soil"? If it's clichés you want, perhaps the rain dripping
> from our bowlers makes the stones difficult to see, especially when
> holding a cup of tea in a pea-souper.

I don't know about stonehenge, but the pyramids were built by AMAZING
astronomers.

> --
> Peter
>
> Ying tong iddle-i po!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark"" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:vMmdnZ2dnZ3hNPGanZ2dnVXpk96dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com...
> >>
> > Another example that comes to mind is that of the guy who made a pair of
> > glasses that turned everything upside down and backwards. After wearing
> > them for about a week, he could do everything that he could do before he
> > put them on. He could read and write, and even drive a car. On the other
> > hand, intelligence is a factor, because he made a small pair and put them
> > on a chicken. The chicken would have starved to death standing on a pile
> > of grain had he not removed the glasses. The poor creature never even
> > learned how to pick up a mouthful of food from the ground......
>
> I wonder if a guy wore them long enough...whether the brain could eventually
> flip everything (??).

Yes, that's exactly what happens - it take a few days IIRC. Then it
takes a few days to flip back when you stop wearing the glasses.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
news:mfDPe.19303$5m3.15713@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In my experience women see red far more frequently.

Then you'd better clean up your act, Ian!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:q5zPe.9727$Us5.4042@fed1read02...

I wonder if a guy wore them long enough...whether the brain could
eventually
> flip everything (??).

Well, I don't know what you mean by the brain, "flipping". Once the
image/color/whatever is inside the brain, it becomes a bunch of electrical
impulses in the dendrites and neurons, and concepts such as flip and color
frequencies lose their meaning. Sometime after we are born, we come to
associate a particular collection of neural impulses with a name that our
elders hang on it. Whenever these nural impulses are being received in our
brains, the elders point at them and say, "See the pretty blue color?" So we
come to associate that paticular set of neural signals with the color,
"blue". Beyond that, I guess the concept of "seeing" the color has no
meaning......

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <UiLPe.9776$Us5.6891@fed1read02>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> By flipping, I've referring to the possibility that if one wore glasses that
> turned everything upside down...whether our brain could eventually "flip"
> the image so that it again appears right side up.
> After all...the brain already interprets the upside-down image on the back
> of our eye. I'm just wondering if it could adapt to an image that would be
> the reverse of that.

It does, after many years of View Camera use I pause when other people
inform me the image is upside down. I never see it that way on the GG
anymore.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:UiLPe.9776$Us5.6891@fed1read02...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1o2dnUMde_3fHZLeRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:q5zPe.9727$Us5.4042@fed1read02...
>>
>> I wonder if a guy wore them long enough...whether the brain could
>> eventually
>>> flip everything (??).
>>
>> Well, I don't know what you mean by the brain, "flipping". Once the
>> image/color/whatever is inside the brain, it becomes a bunch of
>> electrical impulses in the dendrites and neurons, and concepts such as
>> flip and color frequencies lose their meaning. Sometime after we are
>> born, we come to associate a particular collection of neural impulses
>> with a name that our elders hang on it. Whenever these nural impulses are
>> being received in our brains, the elders point at them and say, "See the
>> pretty blue color?" So we come to associate that paticular set of neural
>> signals with the color, "blue". Beyond that, I guess the concept of
>> "seeing" the color has no meaning......
>
> By flipping, I've referring to the possibility that if one wore glasses
> that turned everything upside down...whether our brain could eventually
> "flip" the image so that it again appears right side up.
> After all...the brain already interprets the upside-down image on the back
> of our eye. I'm just wondering if it could adapt to an image that would
> be the reverse of that.
>
Yes.....Well, bear in mind that the image on the retina of the eye is
already upside down. So the brain, "flips" it once already. But again, this
becomes a meaningless concept once the information is just a bunch of neural
impulses. Nobody's brain processes these signals in exactly the same way as
another's, so we just learn to use the information we get to our advantage,
no matter how, "scrambled" it is, as long as it's scrambled the same way
every time. The fact that this guy could adapt to the rescrambled image in
less than a week tells us something. Namely, that the human brain is a very
adaptable organ. Much more so than that of a chicken.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125062452.268185.46550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Peter Twydell wrote:
> In message <uJmdnRfLJqJu95PeRVn-pg@comcast.com>, William Graham
> <weg9@comcast.net> writes
> >Yes. I have gotten into these kinds of arguments with the "experts" in a
> >field before. One of my favorites is the contention that Stonehenge was
> >constructed by ancient astronomers, because if you sight along the edges
> >of
> >the stones today, you will see certain stars where they would have been
> >in
> >the middle ages. I say, "Horsepuckey! All of these stones have settled
> >into
> >the wet British soil over the years, so you can't possible know where
> >they
> >were when the thing was built." But I still see learned articles that
> >claim
> >it was an astronomical structure......
> >
> >
> I'm not surprised you get into arguments when you don't know the facts.
>
> Not much of a geologist, are you? Stonehenge is built on chalk.
>
> "Wet British soil"? If it's clichés you want, perhaps the rain dripping
> from our bowlers makes the stones difficult to see, especially when
> holding a cup of tea in a pea-souper.

I don't know about stonehenge, but the pyramids were built by AMAZING
astronomers.

Perhaps, but every house I have ever lived in has to have it's doorlatches
taken off and filed down every few years or the doors won't latch properly.
And some of these houses were in NYC, and built on bed rock. I don't see how
they can assume that those huge stones haven't settled over the years, and
if there was any settling, then how would they know exactly where they were
several hundred years ago? Frankly, I don't believe they could know, so I
believe their assumption that it was built by ancient astronomers is just
that....An assumption, and not a fact.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:avJPe.9764$Us5.2119@fed1read02...
>
> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
> news:mfDPe.19303$5m3.15713@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> In my experience women see red far more frequently.
>
> Then you'd better clean up your act, Ian!
>

I must caution you that anything you say will be taken down mucked about and
then used in evidence against you six months from now when you have
forgotten an important date.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:05:57 -0700, William Graham wrote:

> Yes. I have gotten into these kinds of arguments with the "experts" in a
> field before. One of my favorites is the contention that Stonehenge was
> constructed by ancient astronomers, because if you sight along the edges of
> the stones today, you will see certain stars where they would have been in
> the middle ages. I say, "Horsepuckey!

Of course not. They were aligned with what once was a runway.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:05:57 -0700, William Graham wrote:
>
>> Yes. I have gotten into these kinds of arguments with the "experts"
>> in a field before. One of my favorites is the contention that
>> Stonehenge was constructed by ancient astronomers, because if you
>> sight along the edges of the stones today, you will see certain
>> stars where they would have been in the middle ages. I say,
>> "Horsepuckey!
>
> Of course not. They were aligned with what once was a runway.

Are you referring to the South American plain of Nasca, or some such?
http://www.crystalinks.com/nasca.html

Nice mystery.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news8qdnQuhZPEfHpLeRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
>
> "Andrew Cook" <news@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1h1wdfu.1c1jgko1dtnv1wN%news@nospam.demon.co.uk...
>> "Mark"" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:vMmdnZ2dnZ3hNPGanZ2dnVXpk96dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@comcast.com...
>>> >>
>>> > Another example that comes to mind is that of the guy who made a pair
>>> > of
>>> > glasses that turned everything upside down and backwards. After
>>> > wearing
>>> > them for about a week, he could do everything that he could do before
>>> > he
>>> > put them on. He could read and write, and even drive a car. On the
>>> > other
>>> > hand, intelligence is a factor, because he made a small pair and put
>>> > them
>>> > on a chicken. The chicken would have starved to death standing on a
>>> > pile
>>> > of grain had he not removed the glasses. The poor creature never even
>>> > learned how to pick up a mouthful of food from the ground......
>>>
>>> I wonder if a guy wore them long enough...whether the brain could
>>> eventually
>>> flip everything (??).
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly what happens - it take a few days IIRC. Then it
>> takes a few days to flip back when you stop wearing the glasses.
>
> A true test of his intelligence (compared to that of the chicken) would be
> to see how he could handle wearing them every other day, or every other
> hour. Could he "switch" back and forth more and more easily, just as a
> parking lot attendant can alternatively drive automatics and stick shift
> transmissions?

That reminds me of the difference between driving on the left or right side
of the road in different countries.
-I had a friend who, along with her husband, was killed when a driver from
Australia forgot which side of the road to pull onto when making a turn here
in California. They collided head-on, killing both my friends. The Aussie
survived...