There's an old fraternity house saying, "Good from far, but far from good," implying that some people look great from far away, but as you see them close up, they don't look so good.

As it turns out, this isn't just a matter of detail.

In the June/July 2006 issue of Scientific American Mind, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran writes about the apparent illusion of the Mona Lisa and her mysterious smile. Psychologists have proven that depending on the distance to an object, the brain uses different methods of identification. From afar, the equivalent of a low-pass filter is applied, which brings out shadow detail that reveals a smile. However, when you view it up close, the brain uses more high-pass detail, which makes the smile more ambiguous.

So it seems that information at different scales can affect how the brain "sees" images, and how what we perceive is really a composite of several scales of seeing.

This led me to think about why the great photographers are so good. They seem to see things that the majority doesn't see. Whether it is a mixture of foreground and background elements, or the play of shadow and light within a scene. Perhaps there is a brain-path disposition to "seeing" that makes some photographers great.

I hadn't seen this type of feature before, but the New York Times published a Q&A with Michelle McNally, their Director of Photography.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/media/asktheeditors.html

There are a lot of technical related questions, but I found the second question regarding synchronization of story and picture to be quite interesting.

The New York Times is reporting on a program run by the International Center of Photography that is using photography with Latina and Black women as a means of therapy.

Of course, art and therapy is nothing new, but the use of digital photography as an instantaneous means to create "art" as well as affect the way people see others and themselves is one of those cool applications of technology that we'd all like to see more often.

I recently returned from a Microsoft Pro Photo Summit on the Microsoft campus in Redmond, WA. We had the opportunity to listen to discussions on a variety of topics from storage to what professional photographers "want."

However, the most interesting discussions from an intellectual standpoint involved image formats. I know what you're thinking. Mundane, boring, who cares? Well, the truth of the matter is that as consumers of digital photography technology, we really shouldn't care. The physics and mathematics of image sensors and how they convert RAW data into stuff we see are necessarily complex, so we leave that to the smartest guys in the room.

On this occasion, it happened to be Thomas Knoll, the inventor of Photoshop.

Dressed in a polo and dockers, he looks and sounds like the guy you want to have invented Photoshop, not the multi-millionaire software developer that he's become. While he was on a panel, he answered a question by using words like "quantum physics" and "photons" and "demosaicing." Even though 99% of the audience had no idea what he was talking about, everyone agreed that it was fascinating. There was a general, albeit tacit, understanding that Photoshop has made digital photography possible quite literally (it has, incidentally, 98% marketshare for image editing software).

My favorite moment was just after Bill Crow, program manager for Windows Media Photo, demonstrated their new image format. Apparently Knoll and another HP color scientist took issue with some of his statements so they went down to the darkened stage during a short break to talk to Crow. A large crowd formed around the three, and it looked and sounded more like a schoolyard fight with super nerds. Sports Illustrated photographer Peter Read Miller usually shoots the biggest games, but this time, he was deeply engaged like the ultimate fan while quipping to me that he could listen to this stuff all day.

I didn't learn much from listening to them speak since the discussion flew over my head, but rather gained an appreciation for the level of intellect that actually goes into the technology. As consumers, we take technological development for granted. We assume that someone else will figure things out for us. Then we're all too happy to bitch about how it should work, forgetting how many steps and decisions preceded any given end-user feature.

Of course, things ought to work easily for the end-user. They shouldn't have to be concerned with technology even though they benefit from it. But occasionally, it's humbling to hear people like Knoll speak, and be thankful that he continues to innovate, even in the face of criticism.