Hm, I'm not so sure - after all, the material thus extracted was not consciously recorded by the photographer? As for pictures I'd like to apply this to: I guess it would be fun to see Man Ray through the eyes of Picasso or "Kiki", or to hang a picture of the photographer taking some of the more famous nude shots (for example by Helmut Newton) beside the finished work. Also, some famous travel photographs could be quite revealing. How about a portrait of Leni Riefenstahl seen by the Nuba (eg. the "mask" with black and white face)? Of course, the main application could be in historic shots and especially photojournalism. Maybe, this could help to decide whether some famous pictures are truly authentic? Robert Capa's falling soldier would keep his secret, however: you do not see his eyes in the picture. Laurenz PS: oh, and one more legal complication: the photographer usually would not have signed a model release form... ----- Original Message ----- From: <lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 11:21 PM Subject: RE: Meta Photography? The image within a picture... > > Laurenz, > > It seems to me that the owner of the original image owns the result of > any data enhancement process. No substantial change to the original > information is made to qualify it as new art. > > OK gang, which picture would you like to apply this method to? Let's > assume the original negative or first-generation print exists. What > could be learned ? > > Something like this J.M. Cameron?: > http://www.masters-of-photography.com/C/cameron/cameron_herschel.html > > or Eisenstaedt?: > > http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.gallerym.com/ea.htm > > AZ > > Build a Lookaround! > The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. > NOW SHIPPING > http://www.panoramacamera.us > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Meta Photography? The image within a picture... > > From: "Laurenz" <enquiries@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, July 30, 2004 12:28 pm > > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > According to the New York Times (not posted on April 1), it is now possible > > to find out what exactly a person was looking at if you just analyse a > > high-quality photo including the eyes. > > > > 'Shree K. Nayar, a professor of computer science and co-director of the > > Columbia Vision and Graphics Center, took high-resolution photographs of > > people that include their eyes and, in particular, the transparent part of > > the eye called the cornea. Then, with a postdoctoral researcher, Ko Nishino, > > he devised computer algorithms that analyze the images reflected in these > > natural mirrors, revealing a wealth of information ... > > Dr. Nishino and Dr. Nayar plan to try their corneal imaging system with > > archival photographs. "It will be fascinating to go back and look at > > photographs of important people like John Kennedy," Dr. Nayar said. "From a > > single image of the eye, we may be able to figure out what was around him > > and what he was looking at.' > > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/technology/circuits/29next.html?ex=1248753600 > > > > So, when you take your next portrait, just think that you may actually also > > produce an image of yourself, the photographer! > > Adjust your clothes before pushing the trigger and wear dark sunglasses when > > someone takes a photo of you in surroundings you do not want the world to > > see... > > One further interesting aspect: who owns the copyright to an image extracted > > from a photo? > > > > Laurenz > > http://www.onlinephotogalleries.com/ >
