Note: Read this post on the site, not in your feed reader.
I just realized something amusing. The second picture in my "Big Dragoon" post, below, might have been too small for you to read—especially if you didn't click on it and look at the 800-pixel-wide version (the largest the blogging software allows).
When you see something "as figure" or "as figuration," you see a shape that isn't there, or a positive as a negative, or an illusion of some sort, as when you see a vase in the well known "two faces or a vase" illusion. M.C. Escher made a career of this.
It's possible to see my statue picture too much as figure, so that the strong white thumblike or torpedo-like shape at the top dominates the brain (you might want to squint as you look at this):
So perhaps it might help you to see what I see when I look at the small JPEG, based on what my brain knows was there and what is obvious in larger, more detailed versions:
Does that help?
Now that you know what it "should" be, glance back at the top version and see if your brain fills in the blank for you, making the thumblike or mushroom-like shape recede in importance.
My original picture had Mary's face in profile, so the figuration is instantly readable. I chose a frame from a different angle because it was exposed better. But I couldn't see how it might read incorrectly, because my brain knew what to expect.
If I manage to get out tonight before dark with the Nikon, I might try to re-do this picture while there's a little more ambient light and see what happens.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
No featured comments yet—please check back soon!
I prefer the second Version Mary.
Posted by: Jeff | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 03:50 PM
My brain filled in the blank. I would probably be able to fill it in even more if you were to send the camera to me to test....
Posted by: David Bennett | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 03:53 PM
Looks like the space shuttle to me...
Posted by: Neil | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 04:00 PM
800 pixels is way too little. And I think Typepad is for-pay, isn't it? Blogger, which is free, has for years allowed up to 1600 pixels on both sides, much more useful.
Posted by: Eolake Stobblehouse | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 04:04 PM
Great, now that I've seen this post, I can't NOT see what other people have seen instead of the face I originally saw. Ugh
Posted by: Arthur | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 04:43 PM
Why read it on the site rather than my reader?
Posted by: Derek L | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 05:34 PM
You're having too much fun, I can tell.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 05:57 PM
Mike,
Data Please, ISO, F stop shutter speed, Lens used etc.
Do you have any idea how many of us are looking fwd to some real data. I hope it is bad because my CFO (chief financial officer) has denied me a loan.
Have fun, keep us up to date.
Posted by: Bill OBrien | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 06:24 PM
It's two faces kissing a vase, actually.
Posted by: Rob Atkins | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 07:24 PM
Coming from a Catholic country where "Mama Mary's" likeness are ubiquitous, I had no problem recognizing her statue in the second photo as posted in your blog. I also remember this statue from the photo you posted during HC-B day. Hence, I didn't see the figuration illusion until you pointed it out.
It is no small irony to me, therefore, that you should mention "phallic" and the Blessed Virgin in "one breath" (actually, a page apart). As a nominal Catholic, my biggest frustration with the Catholic Church in my country is the hierarchy's intransigent position against any form of artificial birth control despite rapid population growth. Equally frustrating, if not more so, is our elected politicians' obeisance to the Catholic Church in spite of the constitutional provision on the separation of church and state.
I'm also eager to see your daylight photos of the statue and others. The capability of DSLR's to make noiseless, well-resolved photos in the dark even when hand-held is almost enough to make one relent. Even an amateur like me with no gear ambitions beyond mirrorless APS-C's for reasons of affordability and portability. Hopefully, there won't be as much daylight between the D800E and my APS-C during the day as there is at night (with due allowance for the photographers' ability, of course).
Posted by: Sarge | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 08:30 PM
Since you have shown the details that is in the face, the more I like that shot. By cropping off the left side and keeping the rest of the image square, the little light pointing at the stature and everything surrounded in deep black makes for a very nice Icon photo. I cannot deside if a matte paper or a inkjet baryta style paper is the best. I hope you print it rather than just do an online version. CHEERS...
Posted by: Mathew Hargreaves | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 11:01 PM
"It is no small irony to me, therefore, that you should mention 'phallic' and the Blessed Virgin in 'one breath' (actually, a page apart)."
I do beg your pardon. I sincerely meant no offense whatsoever by the poor choice of words. I was merely trying to characterize the disembodied shape, not trying to link the two in any way. I'm normally sensitive to words, but I fear I'm not very sensitive to religious scruples.
I'll change it, mindful that the damage might already have been done. My apologies.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Thursday, 08 November 2012 at 11:31 PM