3 ms·
Mirrors did exists since a long time though. You can substitute "photorealistic" with "looks like the square (or rectangle) picture in the mirror". Turns out
by TacticalCoder 2y ago
Mirrors did exists since a long time though.
You can substitute "photorealistic" with "looks like the square (or rectangle) picture in the mirror".
Turns out photographic pictures did capture that "image in the mirror" picture. Funnily enough, using... Mirrors.
> ... or the photos that were painterly?
The answer is simply no. The real world doesn't work like that: photons/mirrors/prisms/our eyes "capturing" photons. Physics vs dialectic if you want.
- kingkawn 2y agoThe nature of the photographic mechanism becomes a new definition of “reality,” but it is still a cultural byproduct, leaving Realness to be still uncovered in all kinds of ways
- taejo 2y ago> You can substitute "photorealistic" with "looks like the square (or rectangle) picture in the mirror". Reflections in the mirror have depth and motion. Even without the viewer or the subject moving, the viewer can see depth in the mirror that isn't in a photo. In those respects, photos are more like paintings than mirrors. Of course, in other respects, they're more like mirrors.
- spython 2y agoIn early photography history there was a pictorialist movement where people used special sort focus lenses to introduce more of a painterly quality. These lenses, such as Rodenstock Imagon still exist and are sought after.
- DiscourseFan 2y agoSo what you’re saying is that the mirror is the measure, and that the projections based on photons, etc. are fundenmentally evidenced by the form of the mirror image?