If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boing Boing)   Not unusual: man wonders if Vermeer might have "cheated" his photorealistic paintings. Unusual: spends years to conduct the experiment, even recreating the 17th century furniture in the room   (boingboing.net) divider line 104
    More: Followup, Vermeer, color photography, experiments, furniture, optical engineering, paintings, conducting  
•       •       •

10864 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2014 at 5:27 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-10 06:46:04 PM
I myself don't really get Photo-realistic "art". To me the point of art is someone's interpretation. If it's copying a photo it has no artistic interpretation.
 
2014-06-10 06:50:56 PM

You_Really_Like_Me: I stopped reading when I read that the guy was sitting in a bathtub thinking about it.


Your loss. Seriously interesting, will have to check out the film.
 
2014-06-10 06:54:39 PM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

/Rant over. Please proceed.


Why not? It's a perfectly cromulent word.
 
2014-06-10 06:56:42 PM

ol' gormsby: ArcadianRefugee: The way Vermeer painted this wall is consistent with a photograph. It is not consistent with human vision. If you were standing in the room that Vermeer painted, you would see that wall as a pretty even shade of off-white. The retina in your eyeball does some image processing to minimize the effect of light and shadow. To your eye, the wall appears to have far less contrast than it actually has. And if you can't see it, you can't paint it. But Vermeer, unlike other painters, painted his walls the way a photographic camera would record it.

That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.

For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.

This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.

Toss some tetrachromats into that mix and you've got a lot of variables that this experiment doesn't account for. Interesting experiment, though - it might stimulate some people into creating some pretty pictures.


Tetrachromat reporting in. Yay chimerism or something. IMHO everyone else is "colorblind".

The only neat thing I really see though is IR very well. I can also pick out anyone in camouflage and most animals that are hiding in cover.

Other than that I have a terrible body. Allergies, autoimmune issues, sex/gender issues and sucky health.
 
2014-06-10 06:57:06 PM

Iamos: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

/Rant over. Please proceed.

Why not? It's a perfectly cromulent word.


Oh, I see now this has been covered.

HaHa.jpg at me.
 
2014-06-10 06:58:15 PM

Mikey1969: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Prophet of Loss: That guy has a lot of money and time on his hands ...

He is one of the inventors of the Video Toaster.

Damn, he WOULD have some money on his hands, then.


i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-06-10 07:03:56 PM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Mikey1969: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Prophet of Loss: That guy has a lot of money and time on his hands ...

He is one of the inventors of the Video Toaster.

Damn, he WOULD have some money on his hands, then.


Wow, that is 100% a problem star name right there...
 
2014-06-10 07:11:24 PM

You_Really_Like_Me: I stopped reading when I read that the guy was sitting in a bathtub thinking about it.


Not an Archimedes fan?
 
2014-06-10 07:13:48 PM

aseras: The only neat thing I really see though is IR very well. I can also pick out anyone in camouflage and most animals that are hiding in cover.


Do you have pointy ears?
 
2014-06-10 07:14:12 PM

peachpicker: The pointless "irregardless", though? That's a whole nother story...


I litterally could care less when people use "irregardless". For all intensive purposes it means the same as "regardless" -- a mute point per say.
 
2014-06-10 07:25:12 PM

mllawso: peachpicker: The pointless "irregardless", though? That's a whole nother story...

I litterally could care less when people use "irregardless". For all intensive purposes it means the same as "regardless" -- a mute point per say.


*pours you a nice cold glass of chocolate milk*

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-10 07:31:39 PM
I had to write a rather lengthy paper involving Vermeer and his paintings in a History class this year, so I'm getting a kick...
 
2014-06-10 07:33:39 PM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Mikey1969: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Prophet of Loss: That guy has a lot of money and time on his hands ...

He is one of the inventors of the Video Toaster.

Damn, he WOULD have some money on his hands, then.

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


Oh come on.  You can find a better picture of Ms. Stockhammer:

www.warp11.com

/Set phasers to SCHWING!!
 
2014-06-10 07:38:15 PM

Corvus: I myself don't really get Photo-realistic "art". To me the point of art is someone's interpretation. If it's copying a photo it has no artistic interpretation.


Art is the doing. Art is the object. Art is not what happens in your head. The only thing that happens in your head is whether you appreciate (or not) what's been done.

If an artist has technical skills, but no inspiration, that's much better than a poseur who wants to make some sort of statement, but lacks the ability to create in a given medium.

If you look at a work and say 'damn, that took some talent', then that's art. If you look at another work and focus on the intents of what the artist wanted to say, then that's not art. It's rubbish.

Most modern art is less about novel expression of ideas, and more about a lack of dirty-hands talent. As an aside, this is why the typical busker working a busy corner is far more talented than most auto-tuned  prancing artistes.
 
2014-06-10 08:16:40 PM
Vermeer only painted about three paintings per year.

It is possible that Jenison and Jillette spent more money making a single painting than Vermeer made in his entire career.
 
2014-06-10 08:18:21 PM
This is actually pretty old news.  It was argued long ago that Vermeer used mirrors for his paintings, and indeed, the distortions in some of his paintings have also been replicated using curved mirrors / lenses:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=QIelMWzUR6gC&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q&f=f al se
 
2014-06-10 08:23:18 PM

Prophet of Loss: That guy has a lot of money and time on his hands ...


Which is all his own doing. I give him props...
 
2014-06-10 08:48:40 PM
ArcadianRefugee: That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.
For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.
This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.



I seem to be able to differentiate colors that many people cannot. I took  this color perception test,  thought it was easy and obvious and got a perfect score. It made my husband swear a lot and insist that it was rigged and some of the colors were the same.

I'd be really interested to hear how people did and what they thought.
 
2014-06-10 08:52:58 PM

MarkEC: nmrsnr: thatboyoverthere: Article even says why that wouldn't work.

Actually it just said that you can't do "on the fly" color compensating, because the colors would look wrong. It doesn't say why, if you tried it and found your colors off, you could make your color palette before painting, and then ignore what your brain is telling you when you paint it on. Or you could meticulously trace out where you are going to do all your shadings on the canvas, and then paint over that while looking directly at it.

In fact, just thinking about it, there's a problem with the guy's whole argument. If your eye can't see it, what does the use of mirrors matter? You still wouldn't be able to see the change in shade, because you are still using your eye and not film.

In the picture below you can't tell by looking that square A and square B are the exact same shade. If you take a piece of paper and cut 2 holes in it so only A and B are showing, suddenly you can see that they are the same. That is the same effect he was getting using the lenses and mirror, concentrating on a very specific point in the scene.


If I let my vision go a little blurry then they look the same to me. But this is a good example... Exactly the kind of thing I was picturing when I read that piece of TFA
 
2014-06-10 09:22:47 PM

DjangoStonereaver: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Mikey1969: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Prophet of Loss: That guy has a lot of money and time on his hands ...

He is one of the inventors of the Video Toaster.

Damn, he WOULD have some money on his hands, then.

[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]

Oh come on.  You can find a better picture of Ms. Stockhammer:

[www.warp11.com image 285x538]

/Set phasers to SCHWING!!


GIS with that name is.....interdasting, to say the least
 
2014-06-10 09:25:36 PM

propasaurus: Pretty sure it's called "this story is from a year ago, but they're plugging the Blu-Ray that comes out today."


^^^^
this

/ suppose his PR agent gets a bonus every time his DVDs / BluRays get a media mention?
 
2014-06-10 09:27:10 PM

Phins: ArcadianRefugee: That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.
For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.
This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.


I seem to be able to differentiate colors that many people cannot. I took  this color perception test,  thought it was easy and obvious and got a perfect score. It made my husband swear a lot and insist that it was rigged and some of the colors were the same.

I'd be really interested to hear how people did and what they thought.


I got a 4, which I guess is pretty good. The light in this room sucks and my eyes were going a bit screen-batty. I'd like to do it with cards in daylight sometime and see if I could beat it.
 
2014-06-10 09:27:52 PM

Iamos: Iamos: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

/Rant over. Please proceed.

Why not? It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Oh, I see now this has been covered.

HaHa.jpg at me.


mjjt: nmrsnr: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

/Rant over. Please proceed.

It's perfectly cromulent, I don't know what you're talking about.

Ambitwistor: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

LOL It's too late!


I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.
x2.fjcdn.com

/ok, Python & Blackadder references in the same thread, we're rolling now
 
2014-06-10 09:30:11 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't think the originals are all that photorealistic?
 
2014-06-10 09:35:44 PM

phyrkrakr: SmackLT: propasaurus: Pretty sure it's called "this story is from a year ago, but they're plugging the Blu-Ray that comes out today."

Looks like this was the thread from last year:  http://www.fark.com/comments/8039935

Honestly though guys... Who cares. It is one of the few interesting fark repeats that if someone missed it should get a chance to see it. It's not like this is one of those that crop up every other day.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-10 09:37:57 PM

Nix Nightbird: Am I the only one who doesn't think the originals are all that photorealistic?


Compared to other art from that era, it's pretty modern looking to my untrained eye. The angles and perspective are similar to what a good quality camera would see, as indicated by the photo of the story author sitting in his replica set. Other art from that era (what little I've seen) appears flat or disproportionate.
 
2014-06-10 10:02:32 PM

peachpicker: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

/Rant over. Please proceed.

Language is not carved in granite, it's fluid and constantly changing, new words come, old words go, it evolves. Any word that communicates effectively a portion of information is a real and useful word.


Some words, yes. "Embiggen" just makes you sound like Ralph Wiggum's and Jar Jar Binks' retarded love child.
 
2014-06-10 10:07:48 PM

Phins: ArcadianRefugee: That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.
For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.
This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.


I seem to be able to differentiate colors that many people cannot. I took  this color perception test,  thought it was easy and obvious and got a perfect score. It made my husband swear a lot and insist that it was rigged and some of the colors were the same.

I'd be really interested to hear how people did and what they thought.


Men have better night vision; women have better colour perception. There is this cool genetic condition that I'm too lazy to google that adds a huge amount of colour distinction. Most people have three "cones" that each detect a different colour, these people, who are all women, have a fourth.

That said, most LCD displays are TN panels that can't display the full spectrum for most people, you need an IPS display for that. So, I'm not sure how valid that test would be.

Ok, so I did Google it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
 
2014-06-10 10:10:51 PM

Phins: ArcadianRefugee: That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.
For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.
This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.


I seem to be able to differentiate colors that many people cannot. I took  this color perception test,  thought it was easy and obvious and got a perfect score. It made my husband swear a lot and insist that it was rigged and some of the colors were the same.

I'd be really interested to hear how people did and what they thought.


I was pleasantly surprised: I scored a 3.
 
2014-06-10 10:26:52 PM
Some people just can't stand it that there is natural talent out there. Unfortunately most of it is already dead.
 
2014-06-10 10:32:09 PM
Got a 4, male with a TN panel display. I zoomed it way in and was moving my head at different angles to try to suss out any differences. All my misses were in the green range.
 
2014-06-10 11:11:24 PM
The only thing you can "cheat" on art, is duplicating others' work.

And even those are often exceptional quality.


You'd think there have to be some skill & effort...but in some pieces, it doesn't even seem necessary.
 
2014-06-10 11:54:41 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Corvus: drxym: It's an interesting and arduous project but surprisingly there are quite a noticeable number of differences between the original and the reproduction considering it was so painstaking - heads looking different ways, rug patterns different etc. Not sure if it was intentional or what.

I don't think that's the point. The point is if someone with no real painting skill could accomplish what was done then it is possible it was originally done that way.

If someone "figured it out" then they would have "developed the skill" which means neither Vermeer nor the researcher were somehow unskilled or cheating, as the article implies when it uses the word "cheating."


Damn that Michael Jordan for all his cheating "practice."
 
2014-06-11 01:15:43 AM

SmackLT: propasaurus: Pretty sure it's called "this story is from a year ago, but they're plugging the Blu-Ray that comes out today."

Looks like this was the thread from last year:  http://www.fark.com/comments/8039935


Thanks for finding that!
 
2014-06-11 01:36:07 AM
A Vermeer thread and no one has posted any Scarlett Johansson pictures yet?

por-img.cimcontent.net
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-11 02:46:41 AM
Did a 38. Not great but better than average I guess.

I remember having one of those cheap plastic comic book order camera obscura things as a kid. I think it cost about $2.00, and I had a terrible time using it because it was made for a right handed person, and I'm a lefty.
What this guy is using looks awfully similar in principle, but with way more expensive parts.
 
2014-06-11 07:05:26 AM
That's a lot of cost and effort to go to just to prove you're an idiot.
Good painter is good.  End of story.
 
2014-06-11 07:11:43 AM

ds615: That's a lot of cost and effort to go to just to prove you're an idiot.
Good painter is good.  End of story.


Not much of a story that.
 
2014-06-11 09:09:44 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-11 09:38:45 AM
"And if you can't see it, you can't paint it."

As soon as I read this I knew the guy was full of shiat. Also, there is no such thing as "cheating" in making art. Whatever technique gets you to the end result is just fine.
 
2014-06-11 10:41:24 AM
"And if you can't see it, you can't paint it. "

umm ... bullshiat. The painter paints what his mind sees not what his eyes see. Picasso anyone?
 
2014-06-11 11:03:00 AM

Phins: I'd be really interested to hear how people did and what they thought.


22. Became eye fatigued by the end. Guess I should have zoomed in like guy above said. No idea what kind of monitor I have.

Cool find.
 
2014-06-11 11:12:50 AM

Phins: this color perception test



Your score: 0
Gender: Male
Age range: 30-39
Best score for your gender and age range: 0
Highest score for your gender and age range: 1520


/ I took my time and double-checked pretty seriously.
// I'm surprised, I wasn't totally sure but I tried several other configurations and always saw something wrong, so I returned to the original configuration...
 
2014-06-11 11:13:13 AM

Phins: ArcadianRefugee: That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.
For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.
This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.


I seem to be able to differentiate colors that many people cannot. I took  this color perception test,  thought it was easy and obvious and got a perfect score. It made my husband swear a lot and insist that it was rigged and some of the colors were the same.

I'd be really interested to hear how people did and what they thought.


I am trying to do this test - I'm sure it's the light but it is messing with my eyes something crazy. This test is going to make me throw up.

Never doing that again - ended up with a 16.

/also this article has been done before as a book.
//I find these comments fascinating but wanted to point that out from the old thread.
 
2014-06-11 11:52:55 AM

mdeesnuts: Phins: I'd be really interested to hear how people did and what they thought.

22. Became eye fatigued by the end. Guess I should have zoomed in like guy above said. No idea what kind of monitor I have.

Cool find.


Couldn't get shown up by random Farkers so I retook it with focus: scored a 4.

/still got shown up
//still have slashies
///yes, they come in threes
 
2014-06-11 12:23:16 PM

Whodat: "And if you can't see it, you can't paint it."


Eşref Armağan would like a word with the author:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C5%9Fref_Arma%C4%9Fan
 
2014-06-11 12:27:19 PM

MBooda: Iamos: Iamos: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

/Rant over. Please proceed.

Why not? It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Oh, I see now this has been covered.

HaHa.jpg at me.

mjjt: nmrsnr: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

/Rant over. Please proceed.

It's perfectly cromulent, I don't know what you're talking about.

Ambitwistor: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMN "EMBIGGEN" SHIAT ALREADY! IT'S NOT A REAL WORD!

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

LOL It's too late!

I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.
[x2.fjcdn.com image 500x343]

/ok, Python & Blackadder references in the same thread, we're rolling now


"Contrafribularities" really should've caught on more than it did. That's the sort of word that sounds like it should go with "salutations" and is at least as meaningful as "congratulations" in my opinion.
 
2014-06-11 01:02:08 PM
So....yeah, the test says I have perfect color vision. So yay, me, and my old eyes and old monitor I got for $13 at the local Goodwill.....
 
2014-06-11 02:49:14 PM

ArcLight: So....yeah, the test says I have perfect color vision. So yay, me, and my old eyes and old monitor I got for $13 at the local Goodwill.....


CRT monitors, especially with Trinitron tubes have better colour range then LCDs.
 
2014-06-11 03:12:12 PM

You_Really_Like_Me: I stopped reading when I read that the guy was sitting in a bathtub thinking about it.


Why would you stop there?

Nearly every inventor in recorded history has admitted to getting their best ideas while in the tub or shower, or while doing any number of other daily, mundane tasks.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report