My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">“Originally posted by pareidoliac 23 Nov 2006 : 07:43
<br />thebobguy- Pareidolia is always there. The detail and art that can be obtained is much greater with shadows, compared to sky in back of leaves. Shadows have a great grey scale that overlaps due to light diffraction, and a non-pinpoint light source (the sun). Look at my "Einstein" image and there's no way that detail could ever be seen looking up at even every tree in the world. Picture what could be captured by the shadow of every tree if this photo was just from one tree at one time. Try mounting a 30"x40" white foam board on a tripod. More trouble but more than worth it. Good luck with capturing beyond art from the "sacred", and your unconscious solipsistic mind.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i> 23 Nov 2006 : 14:39
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />I would think that the chances of finding faces, or other objects, (pareidolia) would be just as common in branches as it would be in leaves. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

thebobgy, if you mean shadows of branches without leaves, I would think that would make it significantly harder to find faces. Imagine if DaVinci tried to paint everything with a broad brush, there would be a certain level of detail that would not be attainable. Same difference. There's a certain miminum requirement for detail. The leaves provide it, for all the reasons Fred mentioned. rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Art, of whatever source, is not defined by the medium used but by the concept presented. DaVinci had the same artistic ability if he had use a floor mop, he would have just presented a different perspective of what his minds eye saw. The only failed experiment is one that is not attempted. If as Fred says; “Pareidolia is always there.” then so be it. As to; “...and your [my] unconscious solipsistic mind.” My solipsistic mind is no longer in the unconscious. My ego tells me I am the center of the universe; my humility tells me I am but one of many universes.
thebobgy

Hear about the Englishman with an inferiority complex [] he thought everyone was equal to him[)][]

A good solipsist isn't at the centre of the universe, he is the universe[8D][}][]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />Art, of whatever source, is not defined by the medium used but by the concept presented. DaVinci had the same artistic ability if he had use a floor mop,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In theory, yes, in practice, no. Imagine trying to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with a floor mop. Or a normal size face with 50 micron diameter hair. Or even a huge face such that the mop dots were relatively correct.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i> 24 Nov 2006 : 08:06
<br />Here about the Englishman with an inferiority complex [] he thought everyone was equal to him[)][]
A good solipsist isn't at the centre of the universe, he is the universe[8D][}][]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Truthfully Stoat, I can think of no human that is not my equal, if that makes me inferior; inferior to whom? Even a "...good solipsist" should exercise tact. My universe ends abruptly at the upper epidermis but, within which, I am supreme.
thebobgy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i> 24 Nov 2006 : 10:41
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />Art, of whatever source, is not defined by the medium used but by the concept presented. DaVinci had the same artistic ability if he had use a floor mop,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In theory, yes, in practice, no. Imagine trying to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with a floor mop. Or a normal size face with 50 micron diameter hair. Or even a huge face such that the mop dots were relatively correct. rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">rd, you are using the medium to define the art. No! the "ceiling" of the Sistine Chapel could not be reproduced with a mop; the ceiling being part of the medium. If the image of the Sistine Chapel were to be recreated so that it could be observed from low orbit even a floor mop might be insufficient but the fine detail could very easily be reproduced. I have witnessed quite ornate art reproduced on the head of a pin. Art is, in part, concept, not medium.
thebobgy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />If the image of the Sistine Chapel were to be recreated so that it could be observed from low orbit even a floor mop might be insufficient but the fine detail could very easily be reproduced. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's true, but we seem to be spiralling away from the fundamental point I was trying to make: what are the requirements for finding pareidolic faces?

On one end of the scale we might have a sea of sand, for instance, totally homogenous, high spatial frequency data. The chance of finding a face is twofold: slim and none. Ok, now add in a rock every 50 yards or so. That might increase the odds to: no way, no how. Then a stick every 10 yards: 1%. A shell every yard; Some crab shells; Bigger sticks; Bigger rocks: 20%. Let a few storms stir up the mess: 50%.

That's all there is to it. At some combination of spatial frequency data that can be seen from whatever distance or resolution you choose to look at it, there exists an optimum combination for finding pareidolic faces.

The leaves help, when we're talking about shadow faces.

rd