Instant gratification: Or is it about the image?

Bordering on being an almost thirty something I am drawn between two aspects of photography: that of the old school film and/ or paper processes, that takes hours of learning a craft and creating ones own aesthetic versus today's instant gratification where in most instances a photo can be snapped on an ipod, ipad, digital camera; then instantaneously transferred into a processing program to be modified with pre-made actions or cross processing tools, preset frames and then uploaded for that much needed ego stroke when a random comment comes along.

I constantly question whether it is worth learning the 'old school' craft if the 'eye' and 'know how' are already there. Is it best to show off ones style digitally with a few hours of processing or if it should be about the image alone or further still just learning the Chemistry and enjoying the ability to learn something new?

How important is the process?
 Does time really matter, or is photography just about the final image?

Well, the following 'marvels of wonder' have had an enourmous amout of time and effort placed into them.

This work is by Bethany de Forest, a photographer I admire, especially for the hours of work!

Ice Sculptures

Well this is something else. Every day I am amazed and today is no exception.
There is magic in people ...

This is my favourite image:

M theory

I f I had to believe in M Theory, then perhaps this image by Jorin De voigt might sway me ...The idea of membranes vibrating in planes causing rifts in reality and playing a musical tune while an external other dimensional expanse might dip into ours momentarily causing a change or changes and then:'poof'  it vanishes, yes this image makes me feel the interconnectivity and I can see the links, patterns and ripples in space time ...
however beautiful this is though I am still not entirely convinced ...

Weird inspiration

Marc Giai-Miniet

A bit of weird inspiration but fascinating never the less. If I were a scientist I would much rather work here than in a lab (which if you are a chemist is almost as dingy, or at least the ones I have been in have been [biology labs are clinical, in most instances], I digress).

Books, miniature, science related, art. 

Fascinating ...

Teddies

Well, you know you are not normal when you can go from quantum mechanics to teddies.

But, ag Mommy 'these are just so sweet!'

I especially love the pink one and his/ her little belly button.

By Catherine Gabriel - Caya's Cottage

Beauty

Bubble chambre's

'Nature is the Artist we aspire to be!'

 

For Neil

On Particle Physics:

Neil, 'my other half' knows that I absolutely love particle physics and reading up on it is sort of a hobby (weird, I know!). So he kept the link for the following video and got me to watch it. This sent my brain into a science frenzy, because I believe that everything is simple and logical and nothing is 'hocous pocous'! (I admit that this is my opinion and that I am one person and everyone is wrong and right at the same time.) After watching it, I think he was a bit disappointed because I said I couldn't believe it until I understood about the measuring device. What exactly was this 'measuring device', and where exactly was it placed in the experiment. Well I have done a bit of research on what others have to say and I have come to my own conclusion.

Thank you, Neil ... you just opened my mind a little wider. 

 

When you observe it by using a measuring device it acts like a particle?

When you observe it without a measuring device it acts like a wave?

By observing an electron you change it's behaviour, because in order to observe it you have to use light (measuring device?) and this disturbs its behaviour ...

Aside: I like that probability comes into this and this sends us on a new journey. Probability's ability to define am electron currently as a wave and a particle. 

[Perhaps anothe discussion for a later time?]

So then, what is the measuring device? 

Opinion 1:

Source: Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol 3, Addison Wesley Longman, 1970 

"They use some sort of a photo detector followed by a photo multipier to detect which slit the electron went through. This detector can be a light source which is emitting photons. When a charged particle such as an electron passes by, the light from the detector is scattered and we can observe a flash on one side or the other depending on which slit the electron passed through. Of course, when the detection is made, the interferance pattern vanishes. Just like little schoolchildren, you could say. The electrons are misbehaving, doing their strange dance and interfering with each other when you are not looking, and as soon as you turn around and look, they start behaving well. One may argue that the act of watching the electrons disturbed them, and that’s why the interference went away. When the electron, on its way to the screen, interacted with the photons of the light from the detector, a jolt was given to the electron which caused the electrons not to go in some convoluted way and destroyed the interference. Fair enough. Let’s reduce the jolt given to the electron so that it is not disturbed. To do so we reduce the momentum, p, of the photon from the detector by reducing its frequency (i.e., increasing the wavelength). Accordingly, we gradually increase the wavelength of the detector’s photons. Initially nothing happens; i.e. the interference bands continue to be not visible because the electrons have been disturbed due to the high energy of the photons. Then suddenly, when the wavelength is comparable to the spacing between the slits, the momentum seems to have been reduced considerably and the interference bands reappear on the screen. With great enthusiasm and expectation, we look at the detector to see which slits the electrons are coming from. What do we see? The detector is not functioning! The scattered light is no longer precise but is smeared out across the two slits and we can no longer tell which slit the electrons are passing through! The disappearance and the reappearance of the interference bands can be explained using the wave nature of the detector’s photon. The precision with which the scattered flash (produced by the interaction of the electron with the photon) can be pinned down is inversely proportional to the wavelength (compared to the distance between the slits) of the photon from the detector. When the wavelength of the photon from the detector is small, many wavelengths fit between the two slits and we can tell precisely which slit the electron went through (but remember the interference bands vanish). When the wavelength is increased and becomes comparable to the distance between the slits, only one or two wavelengths fit between the slits and therefore the flash cannot be pinned down accurately and, just then, the interference bands reappears. Precisely when the interference bands reappears, we lose our ability to make a meaningful measurement about the electron’s path, and this is again nature’s ploy at work; the photon from the detector (or some such elementary particle) is the only tool available to track the electron’s path and it does not cooperate. It is this disappearence and reappearence of the interference fringes, and the inherent inability to precisely say (with the available tools of nature/technology) through which slit the electron went through, that makes quantum physics so strange. "

Opinion 2:

"The question of observation is a good one. The electron is described by what is called a wavefunction. The square of the wavefunction's amplitude at a point describes the probability of an electron being at that point. Hence, when you pass electrons through a double slit, the wavefunction(which is spread out in space) will hit both slits and interfere with itself afterwards, and you get destructive interference at certain spots, which means there will be zero probability of the electron being found there. Thus, you get a fringe pattern. Now, enter a measurement device. Like you said, let's measure the position of an electron before it goes through the double slit. This measurement forces the electron to take a definite position, effectively collapsing the wavefunction and causing the wavefunction to be zero everywhere except where the electron is found. Now, since the wavefunction only exists at one point, it can't go through both slits and interfere with itself, since it won't spread back out after it has gone through them. Thus, the wavefunction wont be able to interfere with itself, and the interference pattern disappears, leaving the particle-like pattern. "

Buckminster Fuller

Source 

''Everything you’ve learned in school as “obvious” becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines''.

(Buckminster Fuller)

Amazing: I wish I had thought of it first.

Sometimes you see something so amazing you just wish you had thought about it first!

I stumbled across the work of George Rousse today and I was literally 'blown away!'

This Week's Inspiration.

Dan Slavinsky

 

Robert Cumming

The following two drawings are definitely my inspiration for this week.

Photograms

So I am off to see 'Shadow Catchers' at the V&A tomorrow. I have been waiting for this since December Last year.

If you have a moment, watch the video versions of the Artsts statements: 'Mind blowing!'

The main theme around the exhibition is the use of photosensitive materials without the use of a lens.

Below is a little something I saw today, in fact' on this same vein. I adore this photogram of the alphabet!

Seen on: iLovetypography

This is a little something I have done myself on the same line.

I hope to up my skill though and learn a little from the exhibition, I already know I am behind in terms of scale!

Life

I thought I would share the most amazing and inspiring words by Garry Fabian Miller: an artist who I have come be admire for his photograms. These are those words:

''My interest in light and time is the accumulation of days. So you start with day one and you live until the last day and the kind of life is the accumulation of all the days, and the meaning comes from an engagement with everyday and then making sense of all the days.''

Half marathon

Usually I keep most of these things to myself but on Sunday I completed my second ever half marathon in 2h 2min, wish I had broken the 2 hour mark, but I was very chuffed.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Weird things

A very odd thing happened today. I sent some photos off in January last year to see if they would allow me to take part in an exhibition and I was unsuccessful. Now a year later I am asked to show my old work. It feels odd because I think my current work is a lot better and I don't really know what to do. Does it make a difference? It is still my work and a representation of my style and life experience or will showing this work set an impression that is not at a standard I have worked to achieving over the past year? Mmmm...

Well, here are the images. I will let you know what I decide in due course.























- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

For Mom

Well Mom, I have been busy editing these for you today. 

I hope you love the final cut ... these are just a few to wet you appetite:

Mind Candy.

Well I missed yesterday, but the message that came from the day was to be content.

So a little something unusual for today. Just a bit of mind candy really, I will leave you with this: