a multi-disciplinary dialog
Posted by Richard Rothstein on February 18th, 2007
Filed in artform,photography
Gorgeous. I am trying to orient myself in this picture.
The reflections of the street against the store (restaurant??) is super… Great picture. Love it.
I have no intellectual understanding of how light refracts, but what fascinated me about this subject (it’s a window at The Asia Society building on Park Avenue and 70Th Street) is that the reflection is of a portion of the street that is actually around the corner from the window itself. What you’re seeing is a reflection of a reflection.
Reflection of a reflection AND a single reflections such as the van on the left reflecting into the wall of the building.
I am reminded of Plato — a playful Plato, if ever there was such.
Or of the way my mind plays tricks on me….
Beautiful photo, Richard. What really mystified me for a moment was the reflections on the stone. Amazing that even a window reflection like this captures something essentially New York. I find myself trying to look through the reflections and into the shop. Fascinating!
Please give us your methods such as our painters and drawers have done. What camera and lens(es) do you use? Do you use a tripod? Adobe photoshop?
Well, this is embarrassing. I hate to disappoint but as I run between business meetings I always carry my tiny little Canon PowerShot S400 Digital ELPH in my pocket, always ready to capture what my eye sees along the way. About 50% of the time, I post my photographs just as they are; the other 50% of the time, I do some very basic playing in Jasc Photo Shop. This is likely to change. A gallery in the city has asked to see my work—which would mean much higher resolution photography than my Canon ELPH can deliver.
Thus, we both are searching for a better camera. Nikon or Canon? Doug Plummer and Paul Butzi use Canon equipment (I hope that I remember it correctly). David Pogue recently raved about, I think, it was the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Nikkor Lens.
Every photographer I’ve questioned says Nikon…but part of the experience for me is the convenience of the mini camera in my pocket as I run around town. How many megapixels do I need to be able to blow something up and print it out for mounting?
I have been reading that it is not the number of megapixels but the size of the sensor.
Are you flirting with me?
Many people that buy cameras look at the pixel number. Thus, the manufacturers raise that number to make the cameras look more attractive. However, if too many pixels are crammed into too small a sensor, the image gets very noisy because individual pixels do not get enough light.
It seems that we have to bite the bullet and get digital SLRs.
Our comments met in cyberspace, mine as usual, totally square. I will have to learn humor from both you and David.
Birgit: I have been reading that it is not the number of megapixels but the size of the sensor.
Richard: Are you flirting with me?
Please Richard, be careful with my mom ;-) She is sensitive and high-strung. She has a foreigner’s tendency to use the English language in an amusing way, without intending it.
I may have been sensitive and high strung in my youth. No longer!
Running between buildings at work and reflecting on my one line above, it did occur to me that it sounded funny but I thought that I had generated another example of, what Karl calls, my ‘sloppy internet writing’ and therefore the attempt at a better explanation. But who knows perhaps the middle-aged lady was subliminally trying to say something funny to shock her son?
Sorry, you didn’t shock me, I didn’t even notice until Richard pointed it out. He is more attuned to these things than I am.