PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Candle's not going to do for this one, Hans. Break out the flamethrower.
Can photograph effect?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- effect photograph
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Conclusion
Hemoglobin is one of the main molecules in the skin that absorbs light. the other main one is melanin, which absorbs visible light but also UV; it seems to be there to help protect skin from too much UV. (But I don't know details.)
Kumar, I tried to make a difference between light on skin (like your arm) versus your eyes. Vision is complicated. I was trying to only talk about one simple question - how a photo might (or might not) have an effect on your skin. Some of your answers included things about vision. Could you read my post again, just thinking about skin? Thanks.
Yes, light can be absorbed by the hemoglobin in the blood as it runs through the capillaries very close to surface of the skin. This is why the skin of light-colored people has a faint pink color. If you push down hard on the skin for a few seconds and let go, at first the skin will look white, then the pink color will come back as the blood flows back to that part of the skin again.
Hemoglobin is one of the main molecules in the skin that absorbs light. the other main one is melanin, which absorbs visible light but also UV; it seems to be there to help protect skin from too much UV. (But I don't know details.)
Kumar, I tried to make a difference between light on skin (like your arm) versus your eyes. Vision is complicated. I was trying to only talk about one simple question - how a photo might (or might not) have an effect on your skin. Some of your answers included things about vision. Could you read my post again, just thinking about skin? Thanks.
posted by flume: If reflected light from the photo hits your skin it will interact with the very top part of the skin. Some light will be reflected back from your skin. There will be no information or energy change to your skin from this reflection. When you talk about effects, do you mean this kind of physical interaction?
posted by Kumar: In case of photo, I am just thinking one way interactions, reflections from photo (of most true colours resembling to person). I am also discussing Person to person interactions but still one way i.e. from person to whom that photo belongs. Two way interactions can be a differant discussions but also applicable--I am now thinking.
I am not talking about two-way interactions. I am talking about one of the different things which can happen when the light hits your skin. When you ask about the scientific effects of light, one of the possible effects is that light hitting your skin can be reflected away by the surface of your skin. This light has an extremely brief interaction with your skin, but it causes no change in the skin.
(In this post I'm only talking about the part of the light which is reflected off your skin, not the part of the light which is absorbed by the skin (and whose energy stays in the skin.)
I would say that light reflected off a photo, then hitting your skin, and then being reflected off your skin is having no effect on you. But I want to be sure you are using the word "effects" in the same way. Maybe I should use the phrase "physiological effects". Light hitting your skin and being reflected off has no physiological effect on your skin. Does this make sense to you? Do you agree with it? You asked about effects and I am trying to sort out the possibilities. I need to know how you are using the word "effects" or we can't communicate.
You said this:
posted by Kumar: I meant any/all effect/s--based on physics & chemistry.
You are interested in "any/all effects" but to talk about them we have to separate out each possible effect. I am asking about a very specific thing in this post. If you can understand the question, please give an answer to this one thing first without adding other things.
Repeating the question:
if some of the light reflected off a photo hit your skin but then was reflected off your skin, would you say that this light had an effect on you? Or not?
Would you think that this light could have a physiological effect on your body or not?
posted by Kumar: In case of photo, I am just thinking one way interactions, reflections from photo (of most true colours resembling to person). I am also discussing Person to person interactions but still one way i.e. from person to whom that photo belongs. Two way interactions can be a differant discussions but also applicable--I am now thinking.
I am not talking about two-way interactions. I am talking about one of the different things which can happen when the light hits your skin. When you ask about the scientific effects of light, one of the possible effects is that light hitting your skin can be reflected away by the surface of your skin. This light has an extremely brief interaction with your skin, but it causes no change in the skin.
(In this post I'm only talking about the part of the light which is reflected off your skin, not the part of the light which is absorbed by the skin (and whose energy stays in the skin.)
I would say that light reflected off a photo, then hitting your skin, and then being reflected off your skin is having no effect on you. But I want to be sure you are using the word "effects" in the same way. Maybe I should use the phrase "physiological effects". Light hitting your skin and being reflected off has no physiological effect on your skin. Does this make sense to you? Do you agree with it? You asked about effects and I am trying to sort out the possibilities. I need to know how you are using the word "effects" or we can't communicate.
You said this:
posted by Kumar: I meant any/all effect/s--based on physics & chemistry.
You are interested in "any/all effects" but to talk about them we have to separate out each possible effect. I am asking about a very specific thing in this post. If you can understand the question, please give an answer to this one thing first without adding other things.
Repeating the question:
if some of the light reflected off a photo hit your skin but then was reflected off your skin, would you say that this light had an effect on you? Or not?
Would you think that this light could have a physiological effect on your body or not?
flume, the effect of colours can better be thought by understanding 'colour therapies', soft/pulsed light applications, blue light applications etc. Btw, what light we expose to a new born baby with jaundice?
Edited to add;
All these indicate, colours can effect through skin--its magnitude or slow & fast effects, we can assess.
Btw, I want to understand; how colours of one substance can be transffered to other substance? Is it just a dilution & shift of molecules?
I thought you were asking about science.Kumar said:
That's a good example of light having an effect on a molecule. I had forgotten that one. And one of my children had that treatment too. I'll have to look it up.
You're not giving enough information for anyone to know what you're asking. Can you give an example? It's probably molecules, though.
I hope you will answer the questions in my other post.
flume said:
Depending of your type, it can have some nominal effect as per light-skin interactions. If we absorb some light reflected from photo, it may effect. But these can be long term effects--means on daily/occasional exposures. I can't say whether emotional effects by photo can enhance better absorption through skin by increased blood circulation by emotions.
Eddited to add;
sorry, i missed this part;
"but then was reflected off your skin"
Depending on your skin colour/s & availability in reflected light off photo, your skin can absorb so wavelengths & can reflect others. Whatever, your skin can absorb, can created some effects.
Thanks for answering my question. I think we are clear on one thing, at least. (about the light from the photo being reflected off the skin.)
Whether absorption has an effect is another question. Your bilirubin example is a good example where absorbed light has an effect. (BTW, when I saw this, they used a panel of bright lights over the baby, much brighter than any reflection from a photograph.)
If the absorbed light just becomes heat, then probably no effect.
But I've run out of energy for now
Whether absorption has an effect is another question. Your bilirubin example is a good example where absorbed light has an effect. (BTW, when I saw this, they used a panel of bright lights over the baby, much brighter than any reflection from a photograph.)
If the absorbed light just becomes heat, then probably no effect.
But I've run out of energy for now
flume said:Thanks for answering my question. I think we are clear on one thing, at least. (about the light from the photo being reflected off the skin.)
Yes.
Whether absorption has an effect is another question. Your bilirubin example is a good example where absorbed light has an effect. (BTW, when I saw this, they used a panel of bright lights over the baby, much brighter than any reflection from a photograph.)If the absorbed light just becomes heat, then probably no effect.
Yes, it is ok but we should also check initiations of other possibilites as cephalic effects if can be initiated by this effect.
Furthur, we should assess effects by (a) reflected lights (b) by emitted energies on low heat as from lamps/candles. (c) by continious exposure of heat (d) our absorption pattern of light & heat.
But I've run out of energy for now
Sorry, but if topic interets you, it should create energy.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Kumar said:
flume, I think that when you replied to this part of what Kumar said you made the perennial mistake of underestimating just how little he understands. He was bringing molecules into that question because he has no clear idea of the difference between a molecule, an atom and a photon, so that somehow "colours of one substance" have an existence independent of atomic and molecular structure and can be simply painted onto another substance.
It's a mistake we all have made when we try to convert science into baby talk for him. There seems to be no degree of simplification that allows him to understand while at the same time still meaningfully imparting the required information.
This was my ealier question: "if some of the light reflected off a photo hit your skin but then was reflected off your skin, would you say that this light had an effect on you? Or not?
Would you think that this light could have a physiological effect on your body or not?"
This was Kumar's answer:
Do you agree with this? (Your answer could be yes, no, or not sure yet)
Some light might be absorbed. Even if it is absorbed, most likely the result will just be a small increase in heat (no different from the change caused by reflection from all the other objects around you).
Would you agree that the light reflected from a photograph and absorbed by the skin that is ONLY converted to heat would have no significant effect on you? Or would you not agree?
(Again, I am not talking about all the light absorbed by your skin, only the part absorbed by your skin which does not result in a chemical change in the molecule it is absorbed by, just a change in vibration (which is to say, a change in heat).)
Another (repeated) question: I think you already agreed with this, but I want to be sure:
Do you agree that when light reflected from a photo hits the skin, there is no effect related to the image on the photo - the thing that it is a photo of? That it doesn't matter if it is a person, house, camel, or random mix of colors? No effect from the particular person whose picture it was? (skin only - I'm not talking about input through eyes. So no emotional effect from recognition of the image.)
(Imagine a picture of a person, and then imagine another picture, same size, with all the same colors, but the colors are all rearranged into a random mix of dots or squares. Would you agree that there would be no difference in their input to the skin ?)
Would you think that this light could have a physiological effect on your body or not?"
This was Kumar's answer:
My point is that reflections from a photo onto your skin will NOT have a significant effect on you.
Do you agree with this? (Your answer could be yes, no, or not sure yet)
Some light might be absorbed. Even if it is absorbed, most likely the result will just be a small increase in heat (no different from the change caused by reflection from all the other objects around you).
Would you agree that the light reflected from a photograph and absorbed by the skin that is ONLY converted to heat would have no significant effect on you? Or would you not agree?
(Again, I am not talking about all the light absorbed by your skin, only the part absorbed by your skin which does not result in a chemical change in the molecule it is absorbed by, just a change in vibration (which is to say, a change in heat).)
Another (repeated) question: I think you already agreed with this, but I want to be sure:
Do you agree that when light reflected from a photo hits the skin, there is no effect related to the image on the photo - the thing that it is a photo of? That it doesn't matter if it is a person, house, camel, or random mix of colors? No effect from the particular person whose picture it was? (skin only - I'm not talking about input through eyes. So no emotional effect from recognition of the image.)
(Imagine a picture of a person, and then imagine another picture, same size, with all the same colors, but the colors are all rearranged into a random mix of dots or squares. Would you agree that there would be no difference in their input to the skin ?)
flume,
You agree that effects can be there from reflected light off the photo. But about magnitude & type of effects, we can't find out unless science tells us 'the effects of colours/wavelengths in visible spectrum. All these can be understood when we can have a data on this. Other systems as colour therapies/phototherapy indicated several effects of differant colours but science doesn't yet tells the same. Differanciating effects can be as per differant energy levels & by its specific pattern. You can't say brain detect & process, one B&W photo of your relative(say having half black & half white of total colour) AND a picture painted half black & half white, similarily. Dimentions, pattern of colour arrangement or specific spectrum can also be important. Brain's detection, processing & causing emotional effects can't be possible just be total colours, it is also specific dimentions dependent. A horse photo with similar total colours can be much differant from your relative's photo even though both horse & relative photos may be having total differant colours same individually. Dimentions/pattern/spectrum's colour's arrandements can also be important.
With these discussions, I feel science has not yes checked effects of individual colours in visible spectrum whereas other systems have indicated it. I also feel science has just assessed heat, IR & UV radiations effects but not colour effects to which we are 'mostly' exposed. We may feel differantly by going under differant colours. We feel of getting changes in moods, emotions, irritations, allergy etc. by exposing to differant colours, so we can't deny their effects. Slightest variations in energy levels & its pattern can bring substancial changes( make us red or blue ) individually irrespective of their magnitude in total. Sunlight of morning, afternoon & evening or of differant seasons, years can effect us differantly--which may also be related to colours/wavelengths, magnitude & their dimentions/directions/pattern.
In short, effects of individual colours & their pattern of arrangements/dimentions & can be specific as per their exposure, irrespective of total colours which can be more or less.
You agree that effects can be there from reflected light off the photo. But about magnitude & type of effects, we can't find out unless science tells us 'the effects of colours/wavelengths in visible spectrum. All these can be understood when we can have a data on this. Other systems as colour therapies/phototherapy indicated several effects of differant colours but science doesn't yet tells the same. Differanciating effects can be as per differant energy levels & by its specific pattern. You can't say brain detect & process, one B&W photo of your relative(say having half black & half white of total colour) AND a picture painted half black & half white, similarily. Dimentions, pattern of colour arrangement or specific spectrum can also be important. Brain's detection, processing & causing emotional effects can't be possible just be total colours, it is also specific dimentions dependent. A horse photo with similar total colours can be much differant from your relative's photo even though both horse & relative photos may be having total differant colours same individually. Dimentions/pattern/spectrum's colour's arrandements can also be important.
With these discussions, I feel science has not yes checked effects of individual colours in visible spectrum whereas other systems have indicated it. I also feel science has just assessed heat, IR & UV radiations effects but not colour effects to which we are 'mostly' exposed. We may feel differantly by going under differant colours. We feel of getting changes in moods, emotions, irritations, allergy etc. by exposing to differant colours, so we can't deny their effects. Slightest variations in energy levels & its pattern can bring substancial changes( make us red or blue
) individually irrespective of their magnitude in total. Sunlight of morning, afternoon & evening or of differant seasons, years can effect us differantly--which may also be related to colours/wavelengths, magnitude & their dimentions/directions/pattern.In short, effects of individual colours & their pattern of arrangements/dimentions & can be specific as per their exposure, irrespective of total colours which can be more or less.
No physiological effects, I should have said. No effects that could change your mood or your health.
You didn't answer my questions about skin effects and now you are back to talking about effects through the eyes.
What makes you think science doesn't know about the effects of the visible spectrum? Never mind; don't bothering answering. That was a rhetorical question.
Sorry, but the language problem is too great. I'm leaving this discussion.
You didn't answer my questions about skin effects and now you are back to talking about effects through the eyes.
What makes you think science doesn't know about the effects of the visible spectrum? Never mind; don't bothering answering. That was a rhetorical question.
Sorry, but the language problem is too great. I'm leaving this discussion.
flume,
Try to understand my post. I mentioned "Differanciating effects" & "Brain's detection, processing & causing emotional effects can't be possible just be total colours, it is also specific dimentions dependent". These are given for example sake. I mean when can brain can detect & process differance in two differant photos with same quantity of colours, then two photos should be releasing signals/energies differantly. As we can see these as differant--their energies/WLs/colours should also be falling on our skin differantly.
I think I made it bit clear. Thanks.
Can you give me some links which shows that the effects of wavelengths in visible spectrum on human bodies via skin is studies?
Try to understand my post. I mentioned "Differanciating effects" & "Brain's detection, processing & causing emotional effects can't be possible just be total colours, it is also specific dimentions dependent". These are given for example sake. I mean when can brain can detect & process differance in two differant photos with same quantity of colours, then two photos should be releasing signals/energies differantly. As we can see these as differant--their energies/WLs/colours should also be falling on our skin differantly.
I think I made it bit clear. Thanks.
Can you give me some links which shows that the effects of wavelengths in visible spectrum on human bodies via skin is studies?
Okay.
Okay.
Okay. The eyes can focus the light with the lens. The information from where the colors are located in the photo is sorted out. The brain gets this information and processes it more. The brain can compare the information with previously stored information and use that comparison to react in some way.
No. When the light from the lamp hits the photo, it is reflecting out from each point in lots of directions. The skin has no lens so the light reflected from different parts of the photo (and the room) all overlaps and there is no way to organize it in space.
If you did project an image directly onto your skin, your skin does not have a way to gather the information from light hitting different parts of skin to recognize an image.
(Skin does have spatial input from touch to the brain. People without sight can learn to read using the Braille alphabet of a few raised dots in different patterns. I don't know if they have tried to make pictures that way, but I don't think you could recognize anything but very crude outlines - not people's faces.)
Also remember that light reflected from a photo will be a small fraction of the light coming from the lamp itself.
I don't know. I found one that showed the spectrum of absorption of melanin and hemoglobin, but it may not be a free access.
Part of the information is from chemistry. If it is known that various molecules found in the body do not respond to visible light wavelengths, then there is no need to look for an effect of visible light on those molecules in the body. I am not sure what the best place would be to look for this information.
Because drug companies need to know how perishable their products are, they may test their products at different temperatures and under different forms of light to see if they degrade in those conditions.
flume,
Good post thanks. But then, how can we get effect of IR or UV rays through skin if our skin is not able to recieve effects from wavelengths? Effect's magnitudes can be more or less but still some effect should be there. All this can be known depending on if science has systematically & completely studied colour's physiological effects. Since, these are indicated in many 'other therapies--we can't straight away reject the possibilities.
One good thing you have indicated indirectly; if this is possible, it can help blind people, substancially.
Good post thanks. But then, how can we get effect of IR or UV rays through skin if our skin is not able to recieve effects from wavelengths? Effect's magnitudes can be more or less but still some effect should be there. All this can be known depending on if science has systematically & completely studied colour's physiological effects. Since, these are indicated in many 'other therapies--we can't straight away reject the possibilities.
One good thing you have indicated indirectly; if this is possible, it can help blind people, substancially.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
It isn't, so it can't.Kumar said:One good thing you have indicated indirectly; if this is possible, it can help blind people, substancially.