• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can photograph effect?

flume said:
What is the connection between your question about the possible effect of visible light on the skin and your original question about shining a candle on a picture of your ancestor (who looks something like you)?
Click to expand...

It's all part of Kumar's stream of UNconscious method of debating- keep no track of where you've been, have no clue where you are heading.

Just wind him up and see which bits of furniture he bumps into.
 
flume said:
What is the connection between your question about the possible effect of visible light on the skin and your original question about shining a candle on a picture of your ancestor (who looks something like you)?
Click to expand...

It is so simple to understand. I want to understand effect of reflected wavelengths in visible spectrums from a person & his photo(on exposing it to light) via eyes & via exposed skin to that reflection.
 
muddying the waters...

There was a paper a few years ago by Campbell and Murphy about extra-ocular effects on light on the popliteal fossa. They were doing some circadian rhythym experiments. They put some kind of fiber-optic pad on the back of the knee which was able to shine bright white light on the skin without heat. They did get an unexpected significant effect, I forget what - I think it shifted the sleep-wake cycle some amount. Several other labs seem to have tried similar experiments without getting significant effects. I don't know what the researchers in the field think about this. Even if the original experiments was accurate and not flawed in some way, the effect of the light pad wasn't enough to cause changes in the similar experiments. I don't remember if they looked at anything besides the circadian rhythym effects.

They could have used this same technique to shine an array of fiber-optic lights like a photograph onto the skin behind the knee. But they would have needed some effect to test for.
 
flume said:
muddying the waters...

There was a paper a few years ago by Campbell and Murphy about extra-ocular effects on light on the popliteal fossa. They were doing some circadian rhythym experiments. They put some kind of fiber-optic pad on the back of the knee which was able to shine bright white light on the skin without heat. They did get an unexpected significant effect, I forget what - I think it shifted the sleep-wake cycle some amount. Several other labs seem to have tried similar experiments without getting significant effects. I don't know what the researchers in the field think about this. Even if the original experiments was accurate and not flawed in some way, the effect of the light pad wasn't enough to cause changes in the similar experiments. I don't remember if they looked at anything besides the circadian rhythym effects.

They could have used this same technique to shine an array of fiber-optic lights like a photograph onto the skin behind the knee. But they would have needed some effect to test for.
Click to expand...

That's one of those experiments that just makes you want to know why they thought to try it in the first place.

I think certain prolific posters with a slim grip on reality might benefit from light stimulation of their pineal gland using a probe placed in their gluteal region.
 
Kumar said:
It is so simple to understand. I want to understand effect of reflected wavelengths in visible spectrums from a person & his photo(on exposing it to light) via eyes & via exposed skin to that reflection.
Click to expand...
Well, it is not simple to me because it is such a strange idea. I can't imagine why you would think a photo would have an effect, especially on the skin.

Suppose it was a picture of an ancestor who didn't look like you?
Suppose it was an unknown unrelated person who did look like you?
Suppose it was a photo of yourself at a younger age?
Would this make any difference to your expectation?
Suppose it was a photo that took all the colors in your ancestor's photo and rearranged them randomly?
Suppose your ancestor's photo got photoshopped into different colors? Or black and white?
Would you think there would be a difference between a picture of your ancestor with blue sky behind him and another picture inside in a room with red walls?
Suppose you had a picture of a frog?

It makes no sense to me that you would imagine some specific effect from a photo. I just don't get it.
 
flume,

I therefore mentioned 'somewhat effects', true colour photo etc. I have asked about black & white photo & dimentions. Photo should show effects as per colour in scientific terms but still sentimental, belief, worshipping effects cab be there which we are not discussing. Look alike mean look alike person whose photo is taken not you/own.

How about looking at your photos taken in your young age?Will it make you bit younger?:D
 
Your eyes and your brain have complicated structures that let them organize the spatial information from visible light that comes into the eyes. The information gets processed and compared to past stored information.

I'm thinking you are not asking about the results of this complicated information processing in the brain which would result in specific memories, knowledge or emotions. Is that right?

Your brain could process the spatial information from a picture of your ancestor, and recognize him whether the picture was in accurate color or all the colors were distorted or changed to black and white. So the exact colors in the photo would not matter for the brain to recognize your ancestor and for you to have an emotional reaction.

You could have a picture of a stranger which was made up of the identical colors as the one from your ancestor, but the colors would be in slightly different spatial order. Your brain could analyze this information spatially and see that one was your ancestor and one was a stranger, even though the color input was identical.

The skin, however, has no ability to process the spatial information from visible light.

Even if the skin could detect different wavelengths of visible light it still could not detect the difference between a photo of your ancestor and a similar photo of a stranger, a frog, or a totally random mix of colored dots. A picture of your ancestor with a blue sky behind him would be similar to a picture of a stranger with a blue sky behind him, but different from a picture of your ancestor with a red background to the photo. There is no way your skin could respond specifically to a photo of a particular person. There is no way for spatial information to be processed.

As far as I know, the skin can not respond differently to different wavelengths of visible light anyway. Plants have chlorophyll molecules which are are affected by specific wavelengths of visible light, and the energy can be used to make glucose. We don't have molecules which respond to specific wavelengths in that way. Light which is absorbed would be released as heat.

It seems like this is obvious, and it is just repeating what I said in my last post.
 
Kumar said:
I mean; can/does emitted spectrum interact with other parts of our body than just only via eyes? If yes, how this effect can be differnt from effect via eyes?

UV light can give you sunburn (chemical change). IR light can heat your skin and tissue (energy conversion).

Can't there be differance in pattern/arrangement of wavelengths in emission spectrum of any molecular structure with same elements in it?

No.

I mean; can there be differance in two emission spectrum's pattern in their chemical formula is same but structure arrangement of their atoms is differant(if it can be possible?). Is it not so that emitted wavelengths travel in line of direction of its emissions?

No matter how you rephrase the question, the answer is still: No.

Does a spectrum is formed in accordance to wavelengths or in accordance to line/direction of emissions of wavelengths?

Wavelenghts. That is what "spectrum" means.

I mean; do we get outer & internal energies by reflections of colour/wavelength's on their exposure to light? Can we think some light can pass via our skin to internal portion of our body?

Light penetrates to some depth (shine a flashlight through your hand). Visual and below-visual wavelengths have never been shown to cause anything but heating.

Furthur, how can natural sunlight (also of morning/evening), white light emitted by tubes & yellow light emitted by burning oil lamps/candles can be differanciated? Are these as per colour differance--as yellow light from burning oil lamp/candle is just yellow wavelength?

By the spectrum.

Also; we can get differant colours of any substance on its visual physical look & on burning it? How emission specturm will behave by its exposure to white light & by burning it?

Does coal and the fire from coal look the same?
Click to expand...

Hans
 
Kumar said:
Is it not so that emitted wavelengths travel in line of direction of its emissions?/
Does spectrum is in accordance to wavelengths as rainbow, or in accordance to how/in which line wavelenths are emitted?/
Does a spectrum is formed in accordance to wavelengths or in accordance to line/direction of emissions of wavelengths?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what this question meant, and I'm not sure I have the knowledge to give you a good answer.

If I understand what you're asking here, the emitted or reflected light travels the way it came from the molecules in the material. It is not normally sorted out spatially by wavelengths the way a rainbow is. That ordered spread of colors is a result of the specific material it came from - the curve of the raindrops in a rainbow, or the geometry of a prism. Normally you wouldn't get that kind of arrangement.
 
Your eyes and your brain have complicated structures that let them organize the spatial information from visible light that comes into the eyes. The information gets processed and compared to past stored information....
Click to expand...

flume,

Thanks. There are two aspects involved in getting the effect from any emission from a photo. One emotional & other on photons-cells interactions. Emotional can be possible in all type of photos i.e. fade/bright/sharp, BW/coloured, with or without backround..etc. It will only be via eyes/brain.

But photons-cells interactions effects will be related to colours & their sharpnesses. Those will effect via eyes, brain & skin. The effect via eyes/brain may be "all wavelengths effect" whereas via skin it can be specific to some wavelengths resembling colour of our skin AND rest will be heat.

We can get emotional effects differantly than photo in case of physical presence of person. It can be due to some wavelengths not emitted by a photo, true colour differances etc. On the other side if photo belongs to a dead OR far away related person, emotional effects can be more.

Are we clear now on effects?

I'm not sure I understand what this question meant, and I'm not sure I have the knowledge to give you a good answer.

You rightly understood my question, thanks.

If I understand what you're asking here, the emitted or reflected light travels the way it came from the molecules in the material. It is not normally sorted out spatially by wavelengths the way a rainbow is. That ordered spread of colors is a result of the specific material it came from - the curve of the raindrops in a rainbow, or the geometry of a prism. Normally you wouldn't get that kind of arrangement.

It means that any molecule with same chemical formula but differant arrangement of atomic structures in it can make their emission specturms differant.? I think ruby & blue sapphire are good example.
 
MRC_Hans said:
UV light can give you sunburn (chemical change). IR light can heat your skin and tissue (energy conversion).

What about effect of wavelengths effects in visible spectrum? Furthur, can IR not cause sun-burn?

Can't there be differance in pattern/arrangement of wavelengths in emission spectrum of any molecular structure with same elements in it?

No.
No matter how you rephrase the question, the answer is still: No.Wavelenghts. That is what "spectrum" means.


What about flume's mentioning? I think you didn't followed my question.

Light penetrates to some depth (shine a flashlight through your hand). Visual and below-visual waveleWavelenghts. That is what "spectrum" means.ngths have never been shown to cause anything but heating.

Differant tempreture on heating can also effect differantly. Btw, why we only see red light/reddend hand when we shine a flashlight through our hand?

By the spectrum.

Is it true that sun-light is mostly yellow light?

Does coal and the fire from coal look the same?

How?? That I want to know. Are there two types of emissions from any substance: one; visual, other; on burning? Can we also consider that every substance so can effect by these two types of emissions?
Click to expand...
 
cwheel.jpg


http://www.johnlovett.com/colour.htm

Whether it effects you??:D
 
Kumar, have you finally gone off the deep end? You have not yet shown that there is any effect. You have not even said what effect you think is there. How about you continue working out the mechanics, you come up with an effect and prove it exists?
 
Originally posted by Kumar Are there two types of emissions from any substance: one; visual, other; on burning?
Click to expand...
The first one is called reflection. The light you see from a photo is made up of the wavelengths from the light shining on it (from a candle or lightbulb or sunlight) which are not absorbed by the photo but which are reflected off the photo.

I think it is more usual to talk about emission when the light comes from the material itself rather than just being reflected off of it. (This could be from burning or from material which is fluorescent or phosphorescent.)

You could call reflected light a form of emission, I think, because the light had to have some interaction with the material of the photo. Maybe it was briefly absorbed and then re-emitted. (Someone else could be more precise about this.) But it was not changed in wavelength by the interaction, only (possibly) in direction. So I think if you are talking casually, you might not call this emission.

When you see light reflected off of an opaque object like a photo, the real difference between the reflected light and the incoming light is how much light has been absorbed by the photo, and at which wavelengths.
 
Originally posted by Kumar Do we need to account all these elements for knowing "effects"?
Click to expand...
That's a complicated question to me, but any effects will be in the brain through the eyes. Not through the skin.
 
Donks, flume,

The main idea is that we can get reflected colour/wavelengths effect provided photo is of true colours as of that person. Since three basic colours can make all visible colours--we can think possibilities of somewhat true colours. On studio photo, they use black cloth as backround & black absorb all wavelengths. So if photo is taken in studio & used white light, I think colours of photo can be much similar--so the effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom