I don't know Mark Stasiuk. I think it would depend on the specific humidity rather than the relative humidity and temperature, but knowing two of them the third can be calculated, if you recall your thermodynamics. However, I think the moisture in the air would be operative in the infrared, not the blue end of the spectrum. and if it's humid enough to affect the light beam, would the distant scene appear as crisp as it is? I don't see why you think I should ignore the technical aspects of the production of the art and just swoon at its result. I think I can do both. I don't have to see the crane or the brushed out wires to know that they had to be there. I know enough physics to be sure of that. And that, I think, makes my point. That is not the case with the light beam. Seeing light beams is not our common experience. We can't know if it was brushed in or not. But, of course, it doesn't matter how it got there. If it suits the artist's purpose, he could have painted it in, or did it with photo shop. I actually like the result and would like to know if its a true physical phenomenon or not. At least he didn't paint in a laser beam as is often done. If it is a result of photons being scattered from the flashlight beam over the extended period of the exposure, I think that that would be fascinating. Roger Sent from my iPad
|
