I don´t know if you´ll see this, Nick, but after you told me about the similar patterns to be found throughout nature, I notice the different patterns more in whatever I deal with
We don't need to measure anything. It is not the number that you find for the length that tells you something about it. See the attached image. It is obvious that the length increases on the lines from the top to the bottom. When you take the straight line of the fractal and it is some kind of zig zag, it has to be longer. When every part of the zig zag is itself a zigzag then the length has to be even higher. If this (mathematically) never ends then this line has not a "usual" lenth. The meaning of it is not what we measure usually.
The mountains are a good analogy. What is the length of the distance that you have to go when you have some small hills up and down compared to the distance that an ant has to go as it has to also go up and down over every tiny non-planarity of the ground? The ant "measures" a higher length. This is of course only an analogy but it is a good one.
As aleady said, go for it. Instead of making 2000 times a photo you make 2000 different photos of soups and other food. Not to speak about the quality of them.
As about no looking at them, well, there are many more and much better things to see here.
Dear Nick You photograph your way - I do it my way. Furthermore I also learn and experiment and have learnt a lot from being here at UF. I don´t simply shoot here and there as you imply. I think that most people will be able to see that I actually think about what I shoot, but you seldom look at my photos, so of course you won´t recognize this. I could shoot grass 2000 times, but I prefer to try to take many different photos using the skills that I´m picking up. I think that it´s great that you try to learn and improve your skills in the patient way. Just don´t think that this is the only way. Take care Annemette
Dear Nick I´m merely enthusiastic, that´s all. I didn´t negotiate already discovered patterns or lack of them. I only pointed out that it would be fascinating if unknown patterns cannot yet be recognized, but are there. We may just look at it the wrong way or having the wrong measurements. Yes, it was obvious that the patterns repeated themselves when looking at them, and that they were big or smaller. Not being a mathematician I didn´t start measuring each line. Hm about the coastal-lines do you mean that we might measure sth. in a straight line, but when walking the same distance then it´s always another length? Like when walking in a mountain that goes up and down where the measurement of a distance from a to b from above is quite different from when you´re walking it? Annemette
I am not annoyed, I simply answer having the impression that you are interested to find mystical meanings at any cost.
There is no assumption that is already negated and could be "right" some day. You should know that already from your studies. The principle of falsification is not matter to subsequent changes. Thus, any "assumptions" that are already falsified will remain simply false.
As about the coastal line, again you insist to remain to influences by time dependend phenomena that are able to shape the coast. As I already said, even when all that is switched off, it isimpossible to make an exact measurement of the coastal line.
What we might measure as a stright line at some certain scale - like for example 1:500000 of some map - is itself a zig zag that has some different length at a resolution of, say, 1:250000. If we take such a zig zag line's length as the sum of all straight lines that it consists, then again a resolution of 1:125000 will show that is is itself a zig zag line. It works down to atomic scales where no absolute length measurement can be made (but for oither reasons there).
The thing is, as you told me you did realize that the pattern was repeating itself in itself. And you didn't see that the very definition of length has tobe altered in this case? You must have been thinking more on the "lookings", I might guess?
Anyway, take a look again. But a long silent look this time.
Dear Nick Your kindness will take no end... Don´t put people down that are not studying within a field that interests you. I know that you can´t answer these perhapsquestions, but I really can´t see why you get annoyed. It just puzzles me that´s all. I don´t want to weigh each word, but talk freely. There has to be room for wild assumptions that might be proven wrong or maybe even right one day. Just because we don´t have the possibility to examine it further now doesn´t mean that we have to stop thinking. Okay the coastallines and the measurement - one really can´t see where it starts and ends which makes it difficult to measure them precisely. At tide or ebb? Where the water touches the coast? Where the sand is dry? Is that what you think about? The above pattern looks a bit like a coastal-line because it spreads out chaotically although still having a recognizable pattern. Annemette
No I am not the impoatient type but enough commited to truth.
You don't need 4000 photos in order to learn something. Some 4 are enough. Just shooting here and there and naming it "experimenting" while still using mainly the auto-settings is not something I could call learning.
But still experiment as you wish and post the results of soups.
When it comes to learning most of the existing self-called methods are ideal for stagnating at the same level. No different approach to learning replaces work and dedication and above all: Awareness! For all that we need time. In this sense any "different method" that is based on simply shooting here and there is perhaps good for an insidentally good photo, but it will not make anybody a master of his/work, simply because the reasons why the photo was captured so well are still unknown.
The hunter that caught the black cat in the darkness without caring to know why was wondering why he didn't catch it the next time he was hunting.
No, I´m not the patient type, but kind though;-) Anyway I know that I could improve my skills a lot, if I took the time to learn. Still I do learn, but I don´t feel like taking 4000 photos that look so and so to learn about light, depth and such. This is why a digital mirror reflex camera is sth. that I intend to buy when the prizes increase making me able to combine experimenting with immediate results on motives that I like. Well, if you looked at my photos you´d see that I do experiment with different kinds of photos. I actually have a very varied portfolio. I just need a slightly different camera to experiment in the way I want while I also learn more about using Photoprograms that offer endless possibilities to make photoart that I personally find very fascinating. When it comes to learning, research has proven that we humans learn and work in various ways. We can´t all be researchers or should aim to be. It´s the combination of all that we are individually that make people great. Best wishes Annemette
You are not the patient type at all, Annemette. And unfortunately this is not going to improve your skills at all. A pity since you do have the gifts. Understanding and knowledge do need hard work and time, but of course you know how to proceed for yourself. Let's hope, we'll see that in your photos.
There are some cameras with a built in tripod already, but from what I see it is a rather bad construction that fails most of the time to guarantee a good fixation of the camera. And the problem is, sometimes you don't need the tripod, but you can't separate that from the camera, and so it gets on the way.
It's difference from the very good example camera-screen is that it extends to infinity while the system camear-screen does not really.
I already answered your question about your assumed "shapes or patterns that repeat themselves from the smallest atom to the great galaxies without us having the eyes or tools or formulas do discover this", so I don't need to comment further your demand for the mystical, which you assume to be the "last truth" about the universe. Typical reaction of those who deny to keep up with modern science. Not the state of superstition is beautiful but the state of knowledge and real thinking. Your "perhaps" and "could bes" are quite useless if there is not any method to prove them. Perhaps we do not exist but as long as you don't give me predictions and ways to prove your assumptions, you remain in the stage of the superstitious sentimentality of existence.
The measuring of the coastal lines is in itself difficult also when no change because of a storm takes place. If you had really seen what is hidden in the pattern I sent you, you wouldn't ask me to explain again, You saw (again) but didn't really observe (again).
I wonder how you can claim thinking if you do not see first what lies in front of your eyes. Take a look again and don't think that you can find the truth by wishing "deep wisdom" and without working.
Counting the sand corns *is* mathematics in the endth degree. But not because of the numbers.
Okayyyy, I guess, I must get the SLR out of the drawer soon. One of the things that bugs me though is how you remember a shot?? Do you write it down, or do you take so many photos that eventually you remember the settings you´ve used earlier? If I´m to learn from this method then I must see some results as I´m not the very patient type that can spend a lifetime figuring this out. I wish, I was, but I learn/work in a different way. Yes, I have a 80-200 zoomlens that I loved using for many of my shots before getting the digital camera. I actually miss using it. I really don´t know how to control contrast with only a memorycard and not having the different options of film. I just know that I would very much like to have all the options in one great inexpensive camera*LOL* Including a built-in tripod of course that pops out in a jiffy when needed! Maybe nano-technology can help us?:-) No, not nanny-technology although I could use a good reliable nanny for my daughter while I photograph*LOL* The ever witty, ever dizzy dreamer shuts up. Over and out. Annemette
Oh yes, I did see that the pattern repeats itself as could it almsot go on to infinity;-)Almost like looking into a camera recording from a tv and this goes on and on making one quite dizzy to think of. I just thought that it was amazing to see the shapes and how they remind me of other shapes around us. Can it be that there are shapes or patterns that repeat themselves from the smallest atom to the great galaxies without us having the eyes or tools or formulas do discover this? This I would call beauty!:-) Will u please explain it to me again about the costallines? I´m not surprised that they are difficult to measure because they change constantly due to the ocean, wind and sand that moves about. During a storm some days ago the ocean ate itself 12 meters closer to a road on one of our islands, and another place a old small church is in danger of falling down into the ocean. Did you mean that they have the same properties,the coastallines, because they can´t be measured accurately and they move in the same way? Maybe not. I´ll go to the ocean and count sand 1 2 3 4 5....see u*LOL* Okayyy I know that is not mathematics, but I had to tease you:-) Take care Annemette
Get better first and then you have all the time of the world to answer. No need to hurry!
So, now that you seem to be OK, prepare for the storm! ;-) You have an SLR in the drawer? In the dawer you say, you unshameful person? An SLR, especially the old ones, *have* to be kept in the hands of the photographer. Always! No buts, and no excuses!
OK, let's get further now ;-) Indeed it is expensive Annemette, but exactly this will sharpen your minds and views. One thing that is thought a a benefit of the digital camera is that you can always make a photo without any further considerations. Is it dull? Who cares, just delete it. And try again. But this way the view and the mind gets too "comfortable" and with the time we just shoot anything.
The other way, the analog way of film, is better for thinking and learning. At least for the time of learning I would recomend it very very wholeheartedly. You learn to consider exactly what things you shoot. It does matter then, if yoiu shoot 100 fotos or only 10. (Except of course if you are very rich.) Film is much more in depth going, much more thoughful, much more being aware but sinking in deepest thoughts about some motive. And so one can learn to see the world with different eyes. It helps recognizing the "special features" of the visible world, if you like.
As long as you learn, get that pure SLR out of the drawer and use it! You will see for yourself how quick you will start shooting much less and sometimes sitting for minutes in front of something before you shoot. No fast results can replace these contemplative moments, when you know that you recognized something and you are able to capture it well.
For this one, could you use perhaps tele/zoom and get a bit further away? The result is much the same (not exactly) if you have the same angle. And yes, switch to narrow aperture. If the shutter speed is too low, get some lamp and illuminate the soup. (And don't worry if they look strange at you ;-) But be careful of reflections, they could destroy the pattern. In general I would prefere a tripod but if you use the right light it could get even better. Try different colors of light and different distances to the soup. (And still don't worry if they call the sanitarium. ;-))
For a better contrast, well, I would choose a Kodak BW 400 Pro, but for digital cameras I don't know. And this is a good question: How to control contrast on a digital camera? Is it possible?
Hmmm, there is a great difference between the physical patterns that you see in the universe (a galaxy, etc) and that which I attached. The astonishing thing in the attached picture is that you can zoom in (or out) and you see... always the same! It is a pattern that contains the same pattern that contains the same pattern that contains... ad infinitum!
If we find such things in the universe, then they are not in the physical/visible structure ot it but perhaps in some mathematical model of its theory. For example plotting some speed against color or anything similar. The structure of the universe is known from the scale of the subatomic world (Quarks - baryonic matter) up to super clusters of galaxies and in this huge domain of scales we didn't find any visible pattern that repeats itself in all scales. But we did find such patterns in a limited domain of scales, like for example the line of the coast of your country. Such patterns are self-similar objects - they are fractals. And they are amazing indeed! having said that, notice that the length of the coastal linbe of Denmark (or any other country) is almost impossible to be measured exactly. Its length depends on the resolution of the measuring process. Even perfekt instruments would not measure the same value at different resolutions.
Get out, go to the coast, and do mathematics! (And capture that on photos! ;-))
Dear Nick Due to some healthproblems I haven´t really had the energy to respond properly to your comment. When it comes to my camera then I have a small compact digitalcamera. I do have an old mirror reflex camera lying in a drawer that I consider working some more with especially because I´d like to know more about the manual settings. The only problem is that it´s quite expensive getting so many pictures developed(as I take;-)) and I can´t see the result right away making me be able to learn right away from trial and error. I guess I´m not the type that works a lifetime within one field very systematically - I´m a creative drifter. That is why I´ll need sooner or later to get a digital SLR making me able to learn faster and experiment in a way that I like. I like to see fast results:-) My current camera has different options within metering, iso, whitelight etc. but not completely manual, so I can work my way ahead. I used the macroprogram for this photo, but due to heat from the currysoup and me holding it in my hand, it didn´t get quite sharp:-( I must try it again some other time using the different programs to see which one uses a more narrow aperture. I guess that is the way to go right now? Anyway I tried to enhance the contrast and make the photo B/W to see if this one also had the patterns that you show me above. I couldn´t really see the resemblance though. It is fascinating though that both physical shapes and rythms can look similar as if they have some sort of common properties? Take care Annemette
Good that you saw it now. No point in dedicating a photo if not being viewed by the lucky fellow*LOL* Anyway I´ll comment on all the cameraissues later. I´m grateful for all your advice. I just want to say that the attachment is very surprisingly to watch with the patterns that repeat themselves looking almost like wavepatterns or like the galaxies as if there are common patterns or sequences to be found more places than we think of. I wonder if the same patterns can be found also in red or white bloodcells maybe as abnormalities or in some microbes? I mean that a pattern repeats itself from big scale universe down to the microscopic world? Thanks for sharing! Very fascinating! Take care Annemette
The color is really goldy-golden, Annemette. But you needed more sharpness here, in order to get the pattern in all its glory also at the base of the photo, since it magnetically attracts the eyes and says: "I am blurry". As already said, choose a narrow apperture and mount your camera on the tripod, and cheer up looking the wonderful capture then. Or of course you could also use some supporting object to fix the camera as long as the long exposition takes. Any electricity pole, or fence can be your tripod, but of course the question is, what to do when no such object is to be found around and the tripod is at home.
This is why I wish that they could find some kind of tripod at last, that is easy to carry *and* is rockhard stable. The materials are there, the technology too, but noone seems to care about making such a thing.
Oh, and BTW, can you adjust working aperture on your camera? I think it should be possible? This really helps extremely to see not what you view on your LCD before the capture, but what your camera sees and is *going* to capture when you press the shutter. Oh and BTW BTW, is your camera an SLR? Or what kind of "view finder" does it have?
Anyway, the ability to see the composition right through the lens aperture exactly as it will open at take time, is for me one of the greatest achievements in photography, since it bypasses all "helps" and "approximations", and shows us only the naked truth as seen by the camera eye. So we have an invaluable mean to get exactly what we want.
On the photo again, could you try that another time at narow aperture/longer exposure? If the pattern is not time depoendend you will be amazed yourself - promised!
Take care,
Nick
P.S.: As about natural patterns, the very same patterns evolve in front of your eyes by letting discrete series of points mathematically evolve or solving (numerically or analytically) differential equations. Small present for you as an attachment. What do you think it is?
0 
{K:127263} 1/21/2007
