Mro--First Looks

Tom- Would be glad to show you an 8"x12" "Lila- Native American Princess" analog color print at my house in Florida. Other than that i don't like getting mercinary, but i would have to sell you a limited edition 8"x"12"print ( out of 50 photographs in edition), signed and numbered, (on back of photograph), with certificate of authenticity. $300 for an 8"x12". Seems only fair as that is the current price gallerys sell them for to other people who have already bought them, and i have a contract with one gallery not to sell photographs at a lower price, in any other location. If you're interested in the most detailed pareidolia, "Einstein" with at least 35 countable pareidolic features corresponding to a human in size, shap, and placement is also available in 8"x10", on archival fiber Kodak paper, limited edition (out of 50) signed, numbered, authenticated as described above. i will also include a special authenticity statement just for you that these images have not been photoshoped, are not altered as far as dodging and/or burning, or any manipulation other than light/dark and contrast and are printed from the original negative. If you would like a "flat" print as close to as it appears on the negative (therefore with no color, light/dark, contrast alteration as i normally do for "artistic" look, that could be arranged and would take time, cost an additional $100 as i would have to pull the negative from the vault and take it to the printer, who is hopefully still in business, as high quality analog prints are getting rare. Last time i spoke with them, (six months ago) they said they were holding out as long as they could, and refused to go digital. Respectfully, fred.

Tom- P.S.- my "Einstein" photograph is part of the "Dancing Bear," collection of the esteemed William S. Hunt curator of photography at the esteemed Rico Maresca gallery in N,Y.C. This is a traveling exhibit that has recently traveled to Arles France and Lausanne Switzerland. He in no way seems to doubt the authenticity of this most detailed photograph of straight forward pareidolia known to exist in the universe, including Mars. i met with him personally when he visited with me here and he introduced me to Tom Southall curator of photography at the Harn Museum in Gainesville Florida who also had no questions about this pareidolia's authenticity. Mr. Hunt's collection contains photographs by the most respected and well known photographers in the world. Thanks- fred.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />rd-please see skepdic.com/pareidol.html
The more one looks for pareidolic images the more they appear.(metaphysics). Another interesting phenomenon is that out of the 500 or so photos i have, not one is facing away from the camera!!! i have a few 90 degree profiles, but 98% are facing the camera. 98% are human looking. No figure is turned away past 90 degrees. ............ My suggestion, wait till you see a face then shoot. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Fred, yes I'm familiar with that photo. Thanks.

That's very interesting about how 98% are facing the camera. I have to think about how that might apply to the Martian pareidolia. And thanks for the tips. On one of my first attempts, I took a bunch of b&w images of the trees themselves, instead of shadows of trees. When I look at the view screen, just prior to shooting, I see many faces pop in and out of view. The feeling I get is that they are "hiding" and peek out every once in a while. While I was taking them, I thought I would have many good examples, but what I found was that I'm seeing too much detail of the leaves themselves, when shooting that way (resolution on the camera is quite good) whereas a shadow would be more two dimensional, and leave more room for the imagination. While I did get enough examples of faces to convince me to continue, I think I'm going to take your advice and do it with a tripod and foam board next time. Also, thanks for telling us how much time you spend per good one, and the parameters you use. That puts it in much better perspective. I can already see the need for a bright sunny day, and a direct line (normal) from sun through tree to board. And not too far from leaves. Plus, I'm going to try and wait longer next time before shooting, like you suggest. Even though digital is free (except for batteries), I think you are right and that might help discriminate.

rd

rd- Great to hear you're thinking of using a foam board. Covering with clamped on paper helps because that way you can inexpensively change the paper, as it is bound to get dirty which would make the pareidolia less pure. Shooting at the board has a great advatage over shooting up at trees because there are many gray shades that way instead of bi-toned up thru tree shots. One can get much more subtle imagery. One can readily see that any "Einstein," type imagery would be impossible shooting up at trees. Getting to close to leaves also makes for greater bi-tones, as there is less overlap of light and shadow. The overlaping of light and shadow is what produces the greys, that's why i generally like to keep the trees 20 to 40 feet distant. You are the first person i've heard from who even contemplated using the board. Thanks for appreciating the process. Interesting how one sees a lot more people turned away from the camera than pareidolics, who always seem to want their picture taken.- fred.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Would be glad to show you an 8"x12" "Lila- Native American Princess" analog color print at my house in Florida. Other than that i don't like getting mercinary, but i would have to sell you a limited edition 8"x"12"print<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sorry, Fred, but I'm not an art connoisseur, and am not in the market to own a print of your no doubt beautiful, elegant, and valuable art. For our purposes here, I'd want to see an internet color JPG image of the same type as the b&w version we've already seen, purely for scientific analysis purposes. A print would have to be scanned and converted to that form before it could be useful. The JPG analysis and interest would be fleeting, and just for the purpose of providing a scientific "pedigree" for the image for the reasons I described.

As I said, I would understand if you don't care to provide such an image for our perusal. I don't know the art world, and it is imaginable that providing us a JPG might lower its commercial value in that world. I can only tell you that, without an opportunity to conduct such an analysis and examine the "canvas", our ability to draw any useful inferences from your art for our Mars work would be impeded.

If you decide to prepare such an image for us, you would likely be justified to catagorize it as a contribution to science. Donations to Meta Research are tax-deductible, and we could certainly provide you with a letter authenticating that contribution. -|Tom|-

Tom- The "Lila," image on the www.yarddog.com/catalog.php?category=50
website IS a color image. I have this image printed to minimize the slight color that always shows up when photographing shadows with color film. The web reproduces so unsubtly that the image virtually looks black and white on the web. fred.