Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Hello again ! (and berry question)


Jim Lloyd

Recommended Posts

Hello to my old friends!

 

It has been quite a while since I have been on here. I am now just over a year into my art practice PhD on the subject of "being a bird". I did do quite a bit of UV phototgraphy as part of this earlier on, but then I went in a different drirection and have been spending a lot of time working on bird song translation (with artistic licence!) .

 

However, I presented some of my UV flower photos to a group of animal behavioural scientists which prompted some interest. One professor said that UV photography of berries would be interesting as birds can tell if they are ripe by the UV reflections. I was suprised as I have never heard of that before. Maybe I need to just go out and try this out, but I wonder if anyone here has heard of this, or had much expereince in UV berry photography?

 

Someone else in the group has been taking multispectral images of insects and studying the warning patterns on them - some of which may only be visible to birds due to the UV component. That sound an interesting area to follow up on.

 

Best wishes

 

Jim Lloyd

Link to comment
Wow, sounds interesting but I will be surprised if it’s true. Berries are transparent in IR sometimes but on the UV end I think they just tend to be black and shiny? Like, we have a number of pictures of pokeweed on here in IR showing that you can see the seeds inside.
Link to comment

Hello Jim! Nice to see you again. And good to hear that the Art Ph.D. studies are progressing. Your work might have taken off in a different direction than originally planned, but I hope you don't give up the practice of UV photography. It will always be so rewarding in a variety of ways, don't you think? Please do continue to stop by from time to time and let us know how your are doing and leave a few comments on the topics here. :smile:

 

Regarding the berries -- that is an interesting question. The primary problem would be that making photos of unripe berries would take quite some planning. You would have to stake out some berry bushes/shrubs/trees and monitor them over a growing season. And a variety of berry-bearing plants would be needed. Wild cherry trees, raspberry bushes, strawberry plants, etc. We can get lots of ripe, edible, cultivated berries in the grocery store, but I've yet to see any place selling unripe berries. And naturally birds eat lots of berries which are not human-edible.

 

Some of my pokeberry photos might show both ripe and unripe berries, so I'll go look them up. If I find a useful photo, I will post it here of course.

Link to comment

Jim, I looked through my files, but I don't have anything useful on the berry topic for you. Sorry!

It would be a great project for someone to set up and work on.

(In my present location in New Mexico, I don't think I would find enough berry trees/bushes/plants to work with!)

Link to comment

Actually your local store maybe a good way to get samples. In my cartons of blackberries and raspberries, I will get a small unripe one or two.

I will have to compare them the next time I see that.

Link to comment

Great to hear from you all again! - many thanks for your thoughts. I have only just seen the replies as I have just realised that the email notification have been going to my Junk folder.

 

Anyway - walking the dog this morning I saw loads of berries (see attached for example). Nearly all red and very highly visible against the green foliage. Almost certainly showing very little contrast for my dog as I understand their vision is rather like humans with red/green colour blindness (?). But I am sure they would be shining out brightly for birds who must have good red green discrimination. So I thought at this time of year (late Autumn [aka weirdly as "fall" to some]!) when there is relatively low amounts of UV in sunlight it would seem unlikely that there would be much evolutionary pressure to make berries highly visible in the UV.

 

Most berries are in the red/orange/yellow range I think - probably the next commonest group would be blue/black and I guess this might be where there could be some UV contrast? - So I should stop being lazy and go and do the experiments! I don't know if it is significant, but I think the blackish berries - eg blackberries (bramble) and elderberries appear earlier (late summer / early autumn) and disappear sooner - most have been eaten / picked / rotted by now.

 

Taking this topic of at a tangent now ...

 

I am fascinated by the prevalence of ideas such as this (i.e. birds being attracted to the UV signature of berries) that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Rather like the idea of bees being attracted to flower UV "targets". (Which I am now convinced is not true having read some of Andrea's helpful posts and references on the subject) Which leads me on to thinking about "fake news" (we are having an election here in UK - so a lot of that about!). Why do some fake news stories go "viral" on social media? - I think it is all to do with narratives. The fake news story has the property of being a plausible narrative that plays into and supports the narrative of those supporting it. Of course fake news can be very damaging and cause real actual harm - so I am not trying to defend it. I am just playing around with ideas.

 

Some successful art is like fake news - it is a fiction - but it is successful and popular as it taps into other narratives - or possible narrative [i guess most of the time it announces itself as fiction, though]. Part of our success as a species comes from our ability to imagine different scenarios and play them out in our mind without having to expend energy actually doing things in practice. So maybe our gullibility is partly an undesirable but inevitable side effect of that?

 

Anyway having been a scientist and now studying art and am always interested in the different approaches. I think artists tend to pursue things rather more based on the interest of the idea than than the truth of the idea - its not clear-cut black and white - just something I am mulling over at the moment. Or maybe there are different types of truth? Traditionally science has the view of truth being perspectiveless - holding to be universal. Whereas post-structuralist thinking supports a view of "situated knowledge" [ref Donna Haraway] - i.e truth being variable based on the viewpoint of the observer.

 

Sorry this is getting very long and rambling now - maybe the editor will pull me back?

 

So when I presented my work to a group of scientists who were experts in the field of animal (particularly bird) behaviour they seemed very happy to go along with my story even though it was rather shaky. In the first part I carefully described avian colour vision (with the 4 types of cones - extending from UV to red) and then showed UV only images and said something like "this is what birds see that is invisible to humans" (a rather vague statement) - nobody challenged me on this, even though of course the birds will be seeing UV just as a part of their overall vision. So I think that despite them being hard-nosed scientists they were also wanting to believe some romantic notion about birds accessing a secret world beyond our own.

 

The next part maybe makes this point more strongly. Here I presented my bird-song translator. This takes in bird song and outputs English words. The basis of this is even more clearly spurious (see https://www.jamesjos...translator.html ) and yet again everyone was interested and no-one challenged me on it fundamentally. I was asked questions about some of the technicalities of implementation (which are clearly irrelevant if the whole concept is spurious) and even asked if the technique could be applied in their scientific studies.

 

It may of course be that they were all being polite (you know us British ...) - and maybe I am making too much of this - but it kind of seems like an important insight to me ...

 

One idea I have is that these fiction/artworks/fake new work because parts of the narrative are completely true - what happens is that at some point there is a fracture and two unrelated parts join up so that the new narrative is now false. Rather like in a dream. So a common type of dream for instance (one I used to have) is appearing in public not fully dressed (for me going to school without shoes) - so the bit about going to school is true - and walking around without shoes is true (in some situations, at home for example) - but the dream is weird as these two unrelated parts are put together in one narrative. But nevertheless kind of believable in your dreamworld as the two part are true - it's the join which makes it false. We don't actually dream of completely wild unknown worlds and environments. So like the bees and the flower target story - the thread "flowers have UV patterns" and the thread "bees are attracted to flowers" are true - it's making a narrative by joining these that is false.

 

Or maybe it is more simple that people easily understand the concept of fact and fiction and switch between them easily, and don't really muddle them up - and maybe secretly there is part of us that wants to return to a childhood time when this distinction seemed less important.

 

Any thoughts?

 

[i'd better stop now or this will become a chapter in my PhD thesis!]

post-175-0-89185800-1573205354.jpg

Link to comment

OK here are some pics. Using D3200 full spectrum converted camera with photax 35 mm lens UG1 2mm+ BG40 2mm. Illumination with UV torch (aka flashlight) Windfire WF-5018. Visible images as above except without UG1- except for 1 image was is from iphone.

 

Conclusion - not much of interest here, generally skin of berries absorbs UV. The bloom on fruit appears white in visible and in UV - so this contrasts with the skin more. The person who put me on to this did mention bloom. Maybe something about the bloom gives clues to the freshness of the fruit.

post-175-0-35468000-1573237711.jpg

post-175-0-40901400-1573237722.jpg

post-175-0-70367100-1573237738.jpg

post-175-0-39288100-1573237750.jpg

post-175-0-45693000-1573237764.jpg

post-175-0-86104700-1573237777.jpg

post-175-0-38929400-1573237812.jpg

post-175-0-59124500-1573237820.jpg

Link to comment

No, the editor will not pull you back!! She very much enjoys reading everyone's comments and finding herself led in new directions of thought.

 

On "fake news": I think that there are just as many "old wives' tales" in science as there are in ordinary, daily life. Some observation which started out as having a grain of truth becomes distorted in the retelling. Or an observation is never fully tested. Or a specific observation is generalized when it shouldn't be. And we know from studying the History of Science (one of my favorite university courses!) that one generation's scientific truth may be debunked by the next generation as more is learned and theories are refined. I won't even get started on human psychology and our inherent biases. Anyway, there might be some berries out there in the world which do change their UV reflectivity when ripe. There are certainly some flowers which change their UV reflectivity when pollinated as a signal to the pollinator to avoid (it is thought). So UV reflectivity change in some berry species somewhere wouldn't surprise me.

 

As for Art and Truth and Lions & Tigers & Bears....oh my!

"....truth being variable based on the viewpoint of the observer..."

I think this post-structural idea of situational truth is simply another name for human culture. We observe that in some cultures the rule is not to burp during dinner because it is considered rude. In other places burping is a sign of a good meal and a compliment to the cook. But I would part company with the post-structuralists and not call this burping rule any kind of "truth".

All that gets too much into the definitions of words though.

 

 

So when I presented my work to a group of scientists who were experts in the field of animal (particularly bird) behaviour they seemed very happy to go along with my story even though it was rather shaky. In the first part I carefully described avian colour vision (with the 4 types of cones - extending from UV to red) and then showed UV only images and said something like "this is what birds see that is invisible to humans" (a rather vague statement) - nobody challenged me on this, even though of course the birds will be seeing UV just as a part of their overall vision. So I think that despite them being hard-nosed scientists they were also wanting to believe some romantic notion about birds accessing a secret world beyond our own.

 

But, Jim, I think that birds do access a world different than our own. That is not a particularly romantic notion given that it is based on scientific fact, methinks?!? Yes/no??

 

I'm thinking also that it is very important to be very clear that UV-only images are how the camera sees a subject and thus illustrate only one channel of bird vision. When I've made charts for bee vision to offer to one of our university agricultural extensions, I put both on the chart: how the UV-camera sees a flower and then how the bee sees the flower (simplified, of course). This is, btw, much easier to do for bees than for birds. Somewhere in the past I must have linked those charts for you. I think you could extend it all to bird vision with a little artistic magic. I'll try to work up something for you this evening when I'm back at the desk to show you what I'm thinking.

 

 

One idea I have is that these fiction/artworks/fake-news work because parts of the narrative are completely true - what happens is that at some point there is a fracture and two unrelated parts join up so that the new narrative is now false. Rather like in a dream.

 

You are adding the art part to the science by the way in which you artistically interpret the bird vision. You use (presumably) false colours and composition and framing and all the other techniques of still or video. You will overlay drama or subtlety or surprise or some different viewpoint onto the scientific facts of bird vision. This to me does not result in a fracture or a False Narrative. Rather it results in an Artistic Narrative which has a combination/blend/dreamlike-Swirl of Cultural Truth (situationally-based) and Scientifc Truth (fact-based). It is like the Art Strand and the Science Strand wrap around each other - kind of like DNA perhaps. They don't totally blend. You can pick out the one strand from the other if you wanted to. Ultimately, I think that both the birds and the scientists and the art critics will be happy with your work in the end. :smile:

 

An artist is, of course, never totally happy with their work - but that is a different discussion for a different day. La!!

 

I will have to think more about your bird song idea. So I'll be back later on that.

 

Hmm.....I really like this idea of the Art/Science helix....I might use this in an artistic statement of my own if I ever get the printer working again to print out some photos for exhibition. :rolleyes: :cool: :grin:

Link to comment

And thank you for the berry photos.

 

Check them for visible fluorescence perhaps?

Under sunlight visible fluorescence can add to the intensity of a colour even though we are not aware of the fluorescence unless it is dark.

Link to comment

See this paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm...4R_266_2125.pdf

 

Does appear to support the idea that the blooms makes that berries more visible to birds due to UV reflections. However, I was not that convinced myself by the paper as they used much higher levels of UV than in natural sunlight.

 

Actually there seems to be a lot of literature on this subject ...

 

See here for example: http://www.evolutionary-ecology.com/issues/v03n07/ddar1285.pdf

 

uumm - maybe I need to do a proper literature review ...

Link to comment

The berries they used were a kind of Vaccinium. So it is possible that we could find blueberries, also a kind of Vaccinium, in the grocery store and UV photograph them with and without their bloom.

 

uumm - maybe I need to do a proper literature review ...

Always a good idea. But there is sooo much to wade through.

 

Unexplained in either paper is why birds also go for ripe, bloomless berries and fruits ??

Added: Animals have many strategies for finding food.

If the familiar bloom is not found, then it makes sense that they would try the unfamiliar bloomless stuff?

Link to comment

Here ya go. Found some grapes in the fridge. As expected from the linked research papers, the bloom is UV-reflective. :cool:

On these grapes the bloom is obvious both visually and UV-ally.

 

610_7990.jpg

 

I tried to scratch off some of the bloom, but I probably just made indentations.

610_7994pn.jpg

 

 

Made with D600 conversion + UV-Nikkor 105/4.5

Link to comment

Result of my thoughts after 1 day of gentle marinating. Final stew might taste quite different.

 

Quoting Andrea

 

On "fake news": I think that there are just as many "old wives' tales" in science as there are in ordinary, daily life. Some observation which started out as having a grain of truth becomes distorted in the retelling. Or an observation is never fully tested. Or a specific observation is generalized when it shouldn't be. And we know from studying the History of Science (one of my favorite university courses!) that one generation's scientific truth may be debunked by the next generation as more is learned and theories are refined.

 

I wonder why the term “old wives’ tales” is used? – And why it is derogatory (even if only mildly) – Have a look at the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_wives%27_tale

And then have a read of the Germaine Greer article (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/may/15/germaine-greer-old-wives-tales) AND the comments that follow it. There is a lot of interesting thought there. I don’t agree with all of it, but I think the main point is that stories (“fairy tales”) in an oral tradition are not true in the scientific sense, but do have cultural value and so should not be dismissed lightly.

 

What relevance does this have to contemporary art?. Maybe, just as photography changed art (painting) from being representational (like a camera view) to incorporate new forms – impressionism, expressionism, abstract etc. So, computers and AI are now changing the way we think of art and science. A computer can store a vast array of facts. But it is only when these facts are threaded together to make a story told by humans that they can be thought of as knowledge. These stories propagate and mutate over time to serve humans (like memes?). This is what art is good at – telling stories, using metaphors, connecting threads (within the atoms of fact – and between individual threads), reconnecting, inspiring the imagination.

 

Science is story telling – it just likes to pretend it isn’t. I remember being taught at school that electrons circle the nucleus like planets circling the sun. But then being told that wasn’t correct – electrons should be though of like concentric shells, or maybe clouds. And then being taught in university that all these images are just approximations of ways of thinking and that really one needs to use complex equations. And another example we were taught that photons were waves, but also particles (and we could use whichever metaphor was most appropriate in the circumstances). Are Newton’s laws of motion true? Well we were taught that actually they were superseded by Einstein’s laws, but OK to use in certain circumstances and both are just models of reality. And Relatively and Quantum mechanics are in conflict – In reality what is happening is that we keep changing the story of science just like the old wives.

 

Quote Andrea …

I'm thinking also that it is very important to be very clear that UV-only images are how the
camera
sees a subject and thus illustrate
only
one
channel
of bird vision

 

But how can a camera see – at what point in the process from light hitting an object to an image on the screen can we say the camera is seeing? – The word seeing really means to understand – to grasp a meaning – as in when we say “do you see what I mean” ? – I often wonder why dogs (well our dog anyway) do not react at all to the television. I think it is because they have not learnt that the flat lens-based screen image relates to the real world in any meaningful way. And meaning occurs when we connect something to our own story. – so a bird seeing a tree might see “nest place” and a human might see “firewood”.

 

Andrea quote

But, Jim, I think that birds
do
access a world different than our own. That is not a particularly romantic notion given that it is based on scientific fact, methinks?!? Yes/no??

 

Have a look here at this Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism_in_science

 

So, I guess when I say a romantic notion this should not be interpreted as a false notion. Its more to do with the attitude or involvement of the person. So, the romantic scientist see’s the UV images and is in awe at the wonder of nature and thinks of the mysteries of trying to understand how a bird might make sense or use this information – or even how they might feel. Maybe the rational scientist sees the image merely as a way of cataloguing information – or thinks in practical terms of what use we can make of the information. Say in farming practices or animal welfare. The romantic is more comfortable with the ultimate “unknowability” of the world. The rational wants to know as a form of mastery.

 

Responding to the art/science helix idea.

 

Nice thought, I am not sure if I am totally convinced by it? In life the double strand of DNA just has one expression (the living being). Somehow what I am looking for is something more united. I think I Iike the idea of the romantic scientist. Maybe modern science can become too rational, maybe artists can help to put some of the romance back into science. The corollary could actually also be true. As I am in an academic art institute, I see lots of art theory. Some of it is so dry- so abstract – so devoid of life – it actually makes me want to cry or scream! (really!) – This is from certain artists trying to talk about their work – to me they kill any shred of romanticism or emotion that might have been in their work. In time the fact that they think like this can stamp out any real spirit in their work.

 

I leant a new word from that Germaine Greer article which I think will stick with me – numinous – “arousing spiritual or religious emotion; mysterious or awe-inspiring”

I think what I am striving for in my art, or what I like to see in other art, is numinousity (not sure if that is actually a word?). Its something that I felt science had lost. I hope that contact between art and science can make science more numinous, rather than making art more rational.

 

QED

 

(PS – maybe I have just been the wrong type of scientist all along, and other have been perfectly happily going along the romantic route anyway …)

Link to comment

Interesting discussion. I will have to reread to make sure I catch all the points.

I will start my own "old wives tale" the we call it fall in the US due to either all the leaves actually falling from the trees or due to the rain and wet roads with some fallen leaves that you find yourself falling on your bum.

 

An old wives tale that has been proven wrong is using tomatoes to remove skunk smell if sprayed. Most likely some crazy old person wanted to increase the humiliation after someone got sprayed and covered that person in ketchup to convince them it would do something.

 

As for fake news, is there really any real news? The old expression always kicks around in my head. 3 sides to any story. Your side, their side and the real truth. We never really know the truth as its blocked by experience and expectations.

 

As for berry images, I got some kiwi berries and I do hope to image them some time. I just haven't had much time being swamped with work lately.

Link to comment

So now some images (maybe the more discursive conversation on art/science etc - should be elsewhere?)

 

Here are some shop bought blueberries (as an aside these seem closely related to those that grow wild on moorland - we used to call them Whortleberries when I grew up in Devon and we would eat them in the wild. Maybe the same as bilberries and/or winberries?).

 

I have carefully wiped some to remove the bloom. Using D3200 full spectrum converted camera with photax 35 mm lens UG1 2mm+ BG40 2mm. Illumination with UV torch (aka flashlight) Windfire WF-5018 (plus some daylight through glass). Visible images as above except without UG1 illumination - some daylight through window plus some tungsten lamps.

 

Visible:

post-175-0-41624200-1573404580.jpg

 

UV:

post-175-0-30880200-1573404654.jpg

 

 

To a rough first approximation it looks like the bloom is white including the UV and the berry skin is black - including the UV. However, it probably is true that the contrast between parts covered in bloom and not is greater in UV than visible. I do find it difficult to be fully convinced that this would have that much influence on bird foraging, given that (as I mentioned before) UV levels in nature will be relatively low and there is contrast in the visible anyway. I guess the counter argument could be that even if the effect was very subtle, choices about which berries to eat could be a matter of life and death for the bird and therefore they might be sensitive to them.

 

 

Now here are some other berries that look similar to the blue berries, but growing the the wild near my home (in fact they must be a very different species as they are on medium size woody bush with thorns - sorry don't know what it called). In this case I have not touched the berries. The effect again is fairly subtle, but there is greater "texture"/contrast in the UV images:

 

Visible:

post-175-0-15695700-1573405201.jpg

 

UV

post-175-0-75460900-1573405226.jpg

 

post-175-0-81663700-1573405247.jpg

 

And finally some red berries - again growing in the wild nearby - sorry don't know what they are called. Look a bit like red currants. They also resemble Rowan (Mountain Ash) - but they are not, there are on rather a smaller bush, rather than a tree. Anyway, as with the other red berries I looked at before there doesn't seem to be any UV reflective bloom. I think I read somewhere that the bloom we see on black/blue fruits occurs on other fruits, but we don't see it. This doesn't seem to be the case in the few I have looked at:

 

Visible:

post-175-0-96272300-1573405469.jpg

 

UV:

post-175-0-69092300-1573405489.jpg

Link to comment

The commercial "blueberries" mostly are Vaccinum corymbosum or cultivars thereof.

 

The red berries are Viburnum opulus.

 

The ones on the spiny bush might be Prunus spinosa (if big) or perhaps Vaccinium uliginosum (if small). Without an indications of scale, or remains of flowers/foliage, differentiating such species can be quite the guesswork,

Link to comment

Not getting many bites on the art/science topic. I am curious to know if people on this forum think of themeselves as artists or scientists or both or neither ?

 

Anyway on a more factual note I have been doing more literature searching on the topic of UV vision in birds and its relationship to their foraging. In summary I would say there isn't a huge litertaure on this topic- its not clear cut and there are lots of gaps in knowledge

 

This paper provides a review of avian colour vision, key points:

  • Avian colour vision is complex and not fully understood.
  • They are tetrachromats and spectral sensitivities of individual cones have been studied in many species
  • Responses vary, but typically fairly evenly spaced with wavelength to give potential for good colour discrimination
  • Broadly two groups, with and without UV sensitivity
  • Complicated by having oil droplets in the cones that modify spectral response
  • Sensitivity can vary greatly – UV receptors may have high sensitivity
  • To fully understand need to consider many factors involving higher level processing, such as contrast detection and spatial resolution and how these might interact. This area still needs research
  • Need to consider lighting conditions in wild.

This paper reviewed foraging behaviour in mammals and birds and their preferences for various colour fruits. Study was done in Africa but may have general application. Key points:

  • Explored the hypothesis that fruit colour (including UV) has evolved due to mutual survival pressure of the plant and animal that feeds on it.
  • Looked at difference between fruits that are mostly eaten by birds and mammals (without UV sensitivtity)
  • Found difference in reflectivity in green and red channels between fruits dispersed by mammals and birds, but no difference in UV and blue channels.
  • Mentioned the importance of UV reflectivity to protect plant and fruit from damaging effects of UV
  • Stress that in these types of study a multivariate approach is required that considered all factors at play, in the plant and animal and environment.

 

This paper looks at UV vision in zebra finches and the relationship between this and seed foraging. They find some evidence for the role of UV and UV vision in determining food choice but state:

“In summary, our experiments do not necessarily demonstrate that ultraviolet wavelengths are in any way special in their effects on the frequency-dependent seed preferences of zebra finches. While it is important to determine the role of ultraviolet wavelengths in any behavioural task, it may prove more illuminating to consider the whole range of wavelengths to which birds are sensitive, rather than focusing explicitly on one waveband”

Link to comment

Not getting many bites on the art/science topic.

 

Probably not quite the right audience for it? Specialty photo forums usually have a majority of members who enjoy the technical aspects of photography -- the gear -- or the software. We usually don't have art photographers who are making portofolios and/or exhibiting. Which is most definitely not to say that we don't have some amazing and exquisite UV photographs here on UVP. We do!! But the conversation does not trend towards art theory.

 

I like to try to talk about art and science and the mixture of both.

But be warned -- I probably have no idea what I'm talking about !!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :rolleyes:

I do like to think about all that. I'm not sure I have all the vocabulary for it.e

 

 

I am curious to know if people on this forum think of themselves as artists or scientists or both or neither ?

 

For me, a little of this, a little of that.

I really have thoroughly enjoyed being an Amateur Botanist (in the traditional sense). Most of my Art, I keep to myself. It is simply for my own enjoyment. UV photography can be taken in such wonderful directions - documentation of floral UV-signatures, interesting portraiture, cityscapes/landscapes, forensics and sometimes (but rarely) it leads to some rather unusual art. The greatest benefit to me has been that UV photography has led me to engage with the natural world in a direct way.

Link to comment

I am a Scientist by training. Lots of training, but unusually many different schools of science. Moving from biochemistry, analytical chemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, neuroscience, structural biology, genetics and microbiology.

I have tried to cover most sciences, which has lead me to have an appreciation and wide scope to look at various problems/projects.

So I use that in what I call art in my photography. I now think I am reaching a good point in conveying the science and art in multispectral imaging. Still playing, but reaching the point I was hoping for 10 years ago when I first opened my photography website.

I hadn't really touch it in 10 years. But surprised today, when I renewed for an other 9 years, that I had 1022 visitors this year and one sale. I have garbage up, that I first uploaded as holding space for the future that I never got to. But next year I hope to put up some of my better images with better organization.

Link to comment

Jim: I do find it difficult to be fully convinced that this would have that much influence on bird foraging, given that (as I mentioned before) UV levels in nature will be relatively low and there is contrast in the visible anyway.

 

You have a visible photo and a UV photo of the Vaccinium berries. But now you must create some kind of bird-view photo. Here's my quick-n-dirty attempt at that.

 

The berries absorb UV and reflect blue (rather dark blue) where there is no bloom. They reflect UV where there is bloom and also appear to reflect a very pale blue (in the original photo) where there is bloom. So, given that the bird has blue receptors and UV receptors, then there are two bird colours (to oversimplify a bit) detected by the bird. The two colours would be Blue and a bird colour we will designate as Blue+UV. We can represent the bird's Blue by simple visible blue. But we cannot represent the bird's Blue+UV easily. I usually create a jumble pie of colours to represent any insect or bird colour which contains reflected UV.

 

When I put Blue and my jumble pie version of Blue+UV over some of the berries in your photo, it looks like this.

birdBlueberries.jpg

 

 

Now, I grant you that I might have over-dramatized my interpretation of the bird's view of the berries. But it does prod one into realizing that the bird is detecting two distinctly different colours on those berries. Of course, we will never be sure about how the bird sees. Does a bird actually form "brain images" of what it sees? Or is a bird's vision specialized to its needs in such a way that images are not necessary? Maybe the researchers will figure it out someday.

Link to comment

Not getting many bites on the art/science topic.

 

Probably not quite the right audience for it? Specialty photo forums usually have a majority of members who enjoy the technical aspects of photography -- the gear -- or the software. We usually don't have art photographers who are making portofolios and/or exhibiting. Which is most definitely not to say that we don't have some amazing and exquisite UV photographs here on UVP. We do!! But the conversation does not trend towards art theory.

 

I like to try to talk about art and science and the mixture of both.

But be warned -- I probably have no idea what I'm talking about !!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :rolleyes:

I do like to think about all that. I'm not sure I have all the vocabulary for it.e

 

 

I am curious to know if people on this forum think of themselves as artists or scientists or both or neither ?

 

For me, a little of this, a little of that.

I really have thoroughly enjoyed being an Amateur Botanist (in the traditional sense). Most of my Art, I keep to myself. It is simply for my own enjoyment. UV photography can be taken in such wonderful directions - documentation of floral UV-signatures, interesting portraiture, cityscapes/landscapes, forensics and sometimes (but rarely) it leads to some rather unusual art. The greatest benefit to me has been that UV photography has led me to engage with the natural world in a direct way.

 

Sorry not sure the best way to answer specific points/quotes, but ...

 

Very strongly agree about the amazing skill, flair and expertise on this forum in producing amazing images !

 

Regarding the art/science debate. I have been thinking about this. When I use the term art I am using it in its broadest sense. This is bound to be difficult to define - in fact because being difficult to define is one of its attributes. I think of it as all those aspects of human culture that are not easy to put into words and defy rational thought. So including beauty, but also terms such as creativity, subjectivity, irrationality, chance etc. So I tend to think of art and science as two complementary modes of human thought. I think maybe there is an analogy with the processes of evolution. The rational scientific part is to do with repetition and development in a predictable way - goal oriented growth. Whereas art relates to other aspect that include mutation and failure and the irrational - we don't always like to think of these aspects, but part of the success of evolution..

 

I agree it's probably not the right forum, but thank you for allowing me to indulge. It may be best to think of art and science almost like different moods or modes which we can all have, we might have the tendency towards one or the other, but can use both.

 

Regarding writing about art - for the reasons above it will always be difficult. It is also ever changing and slippery. There is no agreed defined language to use. That is why (maybe for example some of what I have written) when writing about art, often the writer is struggling not only with the concepts, but also the very language in which they are expressed. So the writing starts to take on aspects of art itself. In science at least the language style and basic parameters are well understood and agreed upon.

Link to comment

I am a Scientist by training. Lots of training, but unusually many different schools of science. Moving from biochemistry, analytical chemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, neuroscience, structural biology, genetics and microbiology.

I have tried to cover most sciences, which has lead me to have an appreciation and wide scope to look at various problems/projects.

So I use that in what I call art in my photography. I now think I am reaching a good point in conveying the science and art in multispectral imaging. Still playing, but reaching the point I was hoping for 10 years ago when I first opened my photography website.

I hadn't really touch it in 10 years. But surprised today, when I renewed for an other 9 years, that I had 1022 visitors this year and one sale. I have garbage up, that I first uploaded as holding space for the future that I never got to. But next year I hope to put up some of my better images with better organization.

 

That's an impressive CV ! - Do you have a link to your website?

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...