I'm ending this month pretty much as I began it. Long exposure shots of the line of rocks off the Lincoln-Shields Recreation Area near Alton, Illinois. Here's another from last night. 
When you return to the same place over and over, it gives you the opportunity to dig into the subtleties that each different evening and, indeed, each minute of those different evenings provide. It's easy to understand why some artists (think Monet and waterlilies) repeat seemingly the same scene. But it's not the same – looking into each is somewhat akin to looking into a Mandlebrot fractal where layers and layers of detail resolve into further layers, endlessly.
I wonder if any mathematician could model the variations I see as I gaze as this turbulent river, even smoothed out with a good long exposure – I suppose technically it could be done, just as digital camera turns sampled photons of light into a digital signal that, transformed, restores that image. But this image is a very crude sampling of the myriad variations my eye beholds. Magnify it just a little and all you will see are pixel blocks. No fractal regeneration here. Somehow, the brain's imagination can bypass this limitation. Look long enough at even this low resolution image, and you seem to recreate as much of the endless variation as you care to let your imagination embrace.
All of which is a very long winded way of saying that the mind's eye is the greatest and most wonderful eye of all.
The river's down a bit, it appears. Lovely shot, Richard. Tranquil-looking, even though it's really not.:up:
Thank you, Star. 🙂 Yes, the Mississippi is down a little but is still in flood. It's going to rise again over the next few days. The river's been high all month, and is likely to remain so as long at the Missouri is in flood and we keep getting rainstorms. That could last for a while. :worried:
My pleasure, Ed. As I indicated, it's been fun collecting these. I'm sure I read somewhere once that the eye was equivalent to about 576 megapixels, which makes today's digital cameras seem pretty inadequate, but the reality is that we really don't need to process a lot of light data to form a complete picture of what we see – as anyone who has watched TV will know. Once again, the mind's eye fills in the gaps.
Very interesting thoughts, and post. "The mind's eye" is certainly the center. I wonder how many megapixels the human eye is capable of?As for the photo, a fitting finish for the set. Thanks for bringing these to us.
That certainly was an incredible trip. :wizard:
Oh, nice side panels. :yes:
Originally posted by edwardpiercy:
Thanks!Photographed at the same spot as the banner. Here's the original I pulled the detail from (actually it's not quite the original, but it's one from the same series).
Originally posted by edwardpiercy:
I would say so! 🙂
Well even those big medium format digital back cameras, last time I heard, were only about 30 mpx. Guess we've got a way to go yet. I wonder why nature didn't include a "zoom" feature for the eye that some birds have? It would be pretty handy. But I guess we've done okay in spite of our handicap, building the pyramids and all. 🙂
Originally posted by edwardpiercy:
It was. One of the best. 🙂
This is a flicker stream from a chap I used to know back in the 80's when I was about 19… Some amazing picture I think…http://www.flickr.com/photos/dadapix/
Looking through them made me go through my lightroom albums and delete quite a few in shame : )
simply beautiful! "When you return to the same place over and over, it gives you the opportunity to dig into the subtleties that each different evening and, indeed, each minute of those different evenings provide. It's easy to understand why some artists (think Monet and waterlilies) repeat seemingly the same scene." I was thinking this the other day at a place we frequent- we were there at noon as opposed to when oft we walk, at sunset- I was commenting how different the prairie flowers appear when the setting sun casts its magical light. each sunset, each speck of variety, gives a different experience visually… and emotionally, for me.I like how you said it, though.
Originally posted by louitrilobite:
Nice link!I know what you mean. There's always someone who seems to do it better. Eventually, though, having cycled through an initial "I'm really great" followed by a "I totally suck" phase, you get to a "Well, I'm OK, not a genius but I usually get one or two really nice shots & I think I sort of know what I'm doing" state. I think that's were I am right now. I look back on some my old stuff and realize I could have done a lot better if I'd known more. But even those pictures have value of a kind, stepping stones on a journey.
Originally posted by studio41:
That's exactly the experience I was describing. It really is magic. 🙂
Originally posted by edwardpiercy:
That's a good reminder that none of us are perfect, Ed!I'm sure you are right about the percentages. Luckily, with digital photography you don't have to bankrupt yourself on film getting better numbers. 🙂
Originally posted by musickna:
Reminds me of this oops moment by Ansel. In photography, it's just a matter of percentages — and the better photographers have slightly higher percentages. Luckily, writing isn't that way. You can go through draft after draft.
With my old camera it was maybe one in ten on a good day… now with my new camera it's shot up to about one in fifty, if I'm lucky : )
You are outstanding photographer, but you are an excellent blog writer as well! :hat: Subscribed! 😀
Thanks, Sami – I appreciate that compliment very much! 🙂