Vortices on the Charles River

Vortex

Figure 1 – Vortices on the Charles River Beneath the Watertown Bridge (c) DE Wolf 2013.

Two physicists were crossing a bridge…  Yes it sounds like the start of one of those physicist jokes that end with the punchline:  “Well first you have to assume that the chicken is spherical.”  Anyway my colleague and I were taking a walk at lunch and on passing over the Watertown Bridge we noticed that there was an excess of sudsy pollution on the river.

This is very foul for the waterfowl (sorry).  But it does highlight the flow patterns of the river.  And what we noticed was that as the water goes under the bridge where it narrows and then releases into the wider river below (right hand side in Figure 1), there is a back-flow (left hand side in Figure 1), resulting from Bernouilli’s principle that causes little whirlpools or vortices to form (center in Figure 1).

I took a couple of pictures and we went on to discuss the Coriolis force and whether water truly goes clockwise down a bathtub drain in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere.  Life is good!

Frederick Cook – sometimes a fraud is simply a fraud

Figure 1 - Frederick Cook's fraudulant photography of his attainment of the summit of Mount McKinley in 1906.This location is now known as "Fake Peak."  From the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

Figure 1 – Frederick Cook’s fraudulant photograph of his attainment of the summit of Mount McKinley in 1906.This location is now known as “Fake Peak.” From the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

We’ve spoken about both sophisticated and unsophisticated photographic fakes.  But it’s important to remember that sometimes there’s no photographic slight of hand to it.  Sometimes a fraud is just a fraud.  Case in point is Frederick Cook’s (1865-1940) photograph of his “successful”  ascent of Mount McKinley, the highest peak in North America.  Besides claiming the first successful climb of Mount McKinley, Cook also claimed, to have reached the North Pole on April 21, 1908, a full year before Peary.  As discussed in yesterday’s blog, both claims are now disputed.

Cook was a physician and explorer.  He was a founding member of two New York both the Arctic Club (1894–1913) and the Explorers Club (1904–present). Dr. Cook was, in fact, the second President of the prestigious Explorers Club.

Cook claimed to have reached the summit of Mount McKinley on  September 1906, which would have made him the first person to do so.  After his claim to the North Pole came into question in 1909, his climb of Mount McKinley also came under scrutiny. Ed Barrill, Cook’s sole companion during the ascent signed an affidavit saying that they never reached the top.

Two modern climbers, Bradford Washburn and Brian Okonek, made it their mission to discredit Cook’s claim.  Between 1956 and 1995 they were able to identify the locations from which most of Cook’s photographs of the ascent were taken.  In 1997 Robert M. Bryce Bryce identified  the locations of the additional photographs, including his “summit” photograph, shown here as Figure 1.  This location, now known as “False Peak,” is approximately twelve miles from the summit and three miles below it.

The point of all of this is that you don’t necessarily need to manipulate images to create a fake.  You just need the imagination to do so and a lot of wishful thinking on the part of your viewer.  And if what I read on the social media is correct, as one false image after another is circulated, wishful thinking is bountiful.

Photographic firsts #11 – first photograph from the South Pole

Figure 1 - Roald Amundsen, Helmer Hanssen, Sverre Hassel and Oscar Wisting (l–r) at the South Pole standing before "Polheim", the tent erected at the South Pole on 16 December 1911. Photograph by Olav Bjaaland, the fifth team member.  Originally published in Amundsen's "The South Pole."  From the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

Figure 1 – Roald Amundsen, Helmer Hanssen, Sverre Hassel and Oscar Wisting (l–r) at the South Pole standing before “Polheim”, the tent erected at the South Pole on 16 December 1911. Photograph by Olav Bjaaland, the fifth team member. Originally published in Amundsen’s “The South Pole.” From the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

All this discussion about great South Polar photographers begs the question what was the first photograph taken at the South Pole?  It was not taken by either Herbert Ponting or Frank Hurley.  But I get ahead of myself.

The English polar explorers were unquestionably leaders in scientific exploration.  But if you wanted results, namely the achievement of a goal, the Norwegians were a force.  And most formidable among them was Roald Engelbregt Gravning Amundsen (1872 – 1928).  By 1910, Amundsen has already led the first expedition to successfully traverse, the until then fabled, Northwest Passage across Canada between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (1903-1906).  One of our readers has commented how often a polar expedition has come to be labeled as ill-fated.  Amundsen’s South Pole Expedition (1910-1912) was anything but ill-fated.  It’s story is both legendary and remarkable.

After his Norrthwest Passage Expedition, Amundsen set his eyes on the North Pole.  He organized his North Polar Expedition and June 3, 1910, he set sail from Oslo. His ship was the famous Fram, previously used by another great Norwegian polar explorer, Fridtjof Nansen.  Amundsen learned that in 1909 two Americans, Frederick Cook and Robert Peary, separately claimed to have reached the North Pole.  At Medeira, he revealed to his crew his audacious plan.  The North Pole had already been claimed; they would head South.  And he sent a simple telegram to Scott:

"BEG TO INFORM YOU FRAM PROCEEDING ANTARCTIC--AMUNDSEN."

They reached  the eastern edge of the Ross Ice Shelf on 14 January 1911, where Amundsen established basecamp. Amundsen adopted Eskimo-style skin clothing, instead of the wool clothing worn by the English.  He used skis and dog-sleds.  He was an expert logistical planner.  In Amundsen’s own assessment in his book “The South Pole:”

I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the
expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen,
and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who
has everything in order — luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for
him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is
called bad luck.”

Amundsen’s team, consisting of Olav Bjaaland, Helmer Hanssen, Sverre Hassel, Oscar Wisting, and Amundsen himself, departed on October 19, 1911, with four sledges and fifty-two dogs. On December 14, 1911, the team neared the pole.  Amundsen’s men held back in favor of their leader.  There should be no doubt who was the first man to obtain the “The Great Southern Nail.”  They arrived more than a month before Scott and his team. They left a small tent and letter stating
their accomplishment.  This was just in case they did not return safely home.  They returned to basecamp with eleven dogs, and their great success was announced on March 7, 1912 when they arrived at Hobart, Australia.

As I said, Amundsen was single minded in his attack on the Pole.  There was no science only committment and exploration.  They are known to have taken few photographs of the event.  Figure 1 shows the men standing before the Norwegian Flag on the tent that they left at the pole.

As a curious side note,  in 1926 Amundsen was among sixteen men who made the North polar crossing  in the dirgible “Norge.”   There had been three previous claims to the North Pole: that of Frederick Cook in 1908; of Robert Peary in 1909; and of Richard E. Byrd in 1926.  All of these are all disputed, either because of questionable accuracy in navigation or because of outright fraud.  As a result, it may well be the case that Amundsen was also among the first group of men to attain the North Pole.

Unfortunately, in the end, Amundsen was indeed ill-fated.  He disappeared on June 18, 1928 while flying on a rescue mission looking for missing members of the Nobile’s crew, whose airship had crashed, while returning from the North Pole.  In 2004 and again 2009  the Royal Norwegian Navy unsuccessfully searched with an unmanned submarine for the wreckage of Amundsen’s plane.

 

Alternative technological universes

Figure 1 Henry Fox Talbot "The Open Door" from his "Pencil of Nature, 1844.  From the Wikicommons and in the public domain because of expired copyright.

Figure 1 Henry Fox Talbot “The Open Door” from his “Pencil of Nature, 1844. From the Wikicommons and in the public domain because of expired copyright.

I was thinking about photographic technology and got to musing about alternative possibilities to modern digital photography.  We’ve gotten so used to taking our images on digital cameras, altering them with an image processing software package, and then printing them using a digital inkjet printer. What if none of this existed?  Are there alternative technologies that we could invent?  I guess that I’ve come to so love the fine detail of dodging and burn that can be achieved with digital photography that the thought of returning to the dodge and burn with masks and fingers of the “good old days” terrifies me.

So then I got to thinking that if you allowed me to replace my old enlarger condenser with a finely focused laser beam (three laser beams if I wanted to do color) then this beam could be my pencil. (Remember Fox Talbot and “The Pencil of Nature“) and I could have as fine and as precise control as ever I wanted.  Photography would be a bit like water-coloring in that you would always be building up density (Burning in) never removing it (dodging), but you could certainly get used to that-just as goauche artists get used to the opposite.

Well no good idea goes uninvented for long, and I learned of Cymbolic Sciences, Inc.’s “LightJet” technology.  That technology was a drum printer that used three lasers (red, gree, blue) to write directly onto color film (silver halide).  It was capable of amazing dynamic range and really represents a hybrid between modern digital printing and its predecessor analogue photography.  These systems are no longer commercially available.  However, they remain the darlings of some photographers particularly large format photographers.

Technology does not necessarily follow a preordained path.  To borrow a phrase from science, there are an infinity of possible world lines.  And unless we are incredible prognosticators, it’s never quite what we think it’s going to be.  Consider all those science fiction movies of the 1950’s and 1960’s where computers “of the future” had blinking lights and reel to reel tapes.  It didn’t quite work out that way.

In science and possibly mathematics, it’s not that way.  We have this unproven sense that science is based on an inherent reality and as a result that theory ultimately has to reflect that reality.  We might express it differently but the reality dominates.

Technology is an evolving system.  Like biological evolution it is driven by a small set of rules, but is ultimately random in the way that complexity grows.  It’s a wonderfully accurate analogy especially as it relates to transitional technologies and their similarity to transitional species.  Fill a niche today and tomorrow you are relegated to quaintness.  Watching this process makes it truly worth getting up in the morning.

Herbert George Ponting, “Sled dog listening to gramophone, 1910”

Figure 1 - Herbert Ponting's "Sled dog listening to gramophone, 1910."  From the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

Figure 1 – Herbert Ponting’s “Sled dog listening to gramophone, 1910.” From the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

There is another Ponting image that I believe is very telling, and it is shown in Figure 1.  The image is of one of the sled dogs listening intently to a recording being play on a gramophone.  People of my generation will remember the RCA Victor Record Label (Figure 2) with some fondness.  We thought that we were at the height of technology, but really weren’t.  Indeed, there was always the sense that we were moving toward something wonderful and unknown.

Figure 2 - The RCA Victor record label not copywritten and in the public domain.

Figure 2 – The RCA Victor record label not copywritten and in the public domain.

So we have to look at Ponting’s “dog and gramophone” and realize that the image was taken on a glass plate negative barely a century ago.  When you went to the Antarctic in those days you were totally cut off from the world. There was no radio contact with the outside world. Indeed the trapped members of the Shackleton Trans-antarctic Expedition didn’t even know the details of the horrible World War, which nearly halted them in England.

It is tempting to say something cliché like “that dog and gramophone represents a transitional point in technological history.”  However, the fact is that every point in time represents a transitional point in technological history.  We are as separated from the next century as Scott and Ponting were from us.  Indeed, given the exponential growth rate of technology, perhaps, we are more so.  It’s a marvelous thought.

You might question the word “marvelous.”  But it is the right word.  Technology is marvelous because it has consistently increased inter-human communication, even inter-species communication.  And we all get a little thrill at the idea that our technology may some day enable us to communicate with other beings from other worlds.  Technology pushes the boundaries of our knowledge ever outward.

Sometimes it is tempting to talk about the evils of technology.  However, technology is not intrinsically good or evil.  As Shakespeare* pointing out that fault is in ourselves.  Science and technology intrinsically increase human choices and possibilities.  If we make the choice to be underlings, that fault is in ourselves not in our technology.

*”The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.” Julius Caesar, Act 1, scene 2.

 

Herbert George Ponting, photographer to the Terra Nova Expedition

Figure 1 - Herbert Ponting's Ice Grotto.  From Wikicommons and in the public domain.

Figure 1 – Herbert Ponting’s “Ice Grotto”. From Wikicommons and in the public domain.

I cannot mention Frank Hurley without also discussing the other great early twentieth century English Antarctic Photographer, Herbert George Ponting FRGS (1870-1935).  Ponting was photogarpher and cinematographer for Robert Falcon Scott’s ill-fated Terra Nova Expedition to the Ross Sea and South Pole (1910-1913).

Scott achieved the Pole only to find the tent erected by Roald Amundsen‘s Norwegian Expedition.  His team died tragically on the return journey and were eventually found frozen in their tent, having suffered severely from scurvy.

Born in England, the son of a banker, Ponting emigrated to California where he married Mary Biddle Elliot and bought a fruit ranch.  After the ranch failed, Ponting took up free-lance photography and photographed the Russo-Japanese War.  He published his photographs “In Lotus Land Japan,” which led to his being elected to the Royal Geographical Society.  This in turn lead to his being signed on by Scott for the Terra Nova Expedition.

Figure 1 - Herbert Ponting "Robert Falcon Scott  in Winter Camp."  Image from the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

Figure 1 – Herbert Ponting “Robert Falcon Scott in Winter Camp.” Image from the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

In the Antarctic he took outstanding images on glass plates (despite the availability of film) including autochrome plates. To me his most memorable image is “Ice Grotto,” Figure 1.  He also took wonderful flash photographs of expedition members in their hut.  Figure 2 is such a photograph of Scott.

Scott’s death was legendary and a result, after World War I, Ponting published a book of his Antarctic photographs “The Great White South” in 1921.  He also produced two documentary films about the Terra Nova Expedition: “The Great White Silence,” a silent film in 1921 and “Ninety Degrees South” a film with sound in 1933.  Ponting died two years later in 1935.

 

 

 

Frank Hurley, photographer, explorer, adventurer

EnduranceintheIce

Figure 1 – Frank M. Hurley, Endurance in the Ice, 1915 from the Wikipedia and in the public domain

James Francis “Frank” Hurley (1885-1962) was an Australian photographer and adventurer(BTW also referred to as “Mad Frank Hurley”). His remarkable photographs document Sir Ernst Shackleton’s ill-fated Imperial Transantarctic Expedition (1914-1916).  I very highly recommend that you read Caroline Alexander’s “Endurance,which is adorned with Hurley’s wonderful photographs.  Frank Worsley, Captain of the Endurance, warned Shackleton, leader of the expedition:

She’s pretty near her end… The ship can’t live in this, Skipper.  You had better make up your mind that it’s only a matter of time…what the ice takes, the ice keeps.”

Figure 2 - Another of Hurley's images of the Endurance trapped in the Antarctic icepack, 1915 in the Wikimedia and in the public domain.

Figure 2 – Another of Hurley’s images of the Endurance trapped in the Antarctic icepack, 1915 in the Wikimedia and in the public domain.

And thus began the greatest sea voyage, 800 miles across furious seas in an open boat, in the history of the world.  It is truly the stuff of which legends are made.  And Hurley documented it all.  I think that you must agree that his photographs are excellent.  That he had a gift and an wonderfully artistic eye.  Following his Antarctic adventures, Hurley went on to a long and highly productive career in photography and cinema.  He was a combat photographer in both World Wars.

I’d like you to consider two more of Hurley’s spectacular images.  Shackleton’s return to rescue the sailors he left on Elephant Island (Figure 3) and a combat image “The Battle of Zoonekee” taken by Hurley during World War I (Figure 4).  These are both wonderfully executed images and I think really speak to the talent of the photographer..

Figure 3 - Shackleton's Return to Elephant Island from the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

Figure 3 – Shackleton’s Return to Elephant Island from the Wikicommons and in the public domain.

BattleofZonnebeeke

Figure 4 -Frank Hurley’s “The Battle of Zoonebeke.” Original image is in the collection of the Library of New South Wales and is in the public domain.

Hurley was troubled by the limitations of his media.  As we have discussed previously, emulsions of the day were highly sensitive to UV light and, as a result, skies tended to be a boring blur of whiteness.  The bulkiness and slowness of early twentieth century cameras made combat photography cumbersome.  Remember that earlier war photographers like Matthew Brady tended to photograph the aftermath of battles and camp scenes rather than combat itself.

Both figures 3 & 4 represent manipulations.  There is an excellent little video of how and why, in Hurley’s own words, they were done at the Australian Screen Organization’s website.  Figure 3 is ambiguous as to whether it truly shows: Shackleton’s return to Elephant Island, as Hurley published it, or his departure.  More significantly the dramatic moody sky was added in photo-montage.  Similarly, Figure 3 is a montage of three of Hurley’s photographs composited for dramatic effect.

None of this detracts from Hurley as a photographer.  However, Australia’s official wartime historian, Charles Bean, who was in charge of the photographic unit, was outraged and declared these images fakes. He  demanded Hurley stop making them.  I bring these to your attention because they inhabit the grey area between fraud and art.  As artistic works all of this manipulation is allowed and acceptable.  As photojournalistic images they may be considered to have crossed the ethical line into the realm of fakery.  It is a matter of perspective, and you will have to decide for yourselves.

 

More forms of image abuse

I had thought that I was through, at least for the moment, with our discussion of “image abuse.”  And I’ve concluded that “image abuse” is just the right term for it, since it includes much more than “Photoshopping” and image manipulation.  It really goes to the very core of people manipulation through photography.

Anyway, just as I was turning the chapter on this subject a controversy erupted on the internet about the History Channel miniseries “The Bible” and how the face of Satan on this series bears more than a coincidental likeness to President Obama.  I am really not one to look for conspiracies everywhere I go.  So I’m going to ask you to judge for yourselves.  And, by the way, before you weigh in with your opinion, also take a look at another image of the actor, Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni, who plays Satan in the series without his makeup .

Also, and despite all this stuff about the face of darkness, I have to ask why Satan is portrayed as a black man, while God is portrayed as white?  The face of Evil does not need to be black as demonstrated beyond all doubt by the image of Prince Palpatine in the Return of the Jedi. And suggestions made in so depicting the devil is no different from images from the last US election of President Obama with a Hitler mustache.

This is all “image abuse.” It represents an attempt to manipulate people that we must, regardless of political leaning, all rail against.  There is no place for this kind of racism or this kind of disrespectful innuendo in a free society.

“Shopped” images and the modern day Herostratus

Site_of_Temple_of_Artemis

Figure 1 – What remains of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus today. Photograph by Ronan Reinart from the Wikicommons under creative commons license.

On July 21, 356 BC, seeking notoriety, Herostratus (Ἡρόστρατος) burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (one of the seven wonders of the ancient world). The name, Herostratus has become a metonym (equivalent) for someone who commits a criminal act in order to become famous.  Herostratus proudly proclaimed his guilt in an attempt to immortalize his name. The Ephesian authorities had him executed and forbade the mention of his name under penalty of death. However, the ancient historian Theopompus recorded the event and the name Herostratus in his “Hellenics.”  In that sense, Herostratus was successful in achieving his goal.

Nice story – I know – but you ask, what does this have to do with the creation of fake “shopped” images?  Well let me ask this: why do people create “fake” images.  It’s all a matter of intention.  As I’ve said in science and press photography it’s strictly forbidden- but elsewhere? Is it fair for me to laud the artist as one who “shops” images to create what (s)he believes to be beautiful, but at the same time to criticize the fashion and advertising photographer as one who “shops” images to make money?  Both may make money from their labors and both are trying to create what they believe to be beautiful.

This part of it gets very complicated, and, I believe, that we are left with the issue of motive.  If the motive is to exploit, to manipulate, to hurt, then it is wrong.  We may defend someones right to self-expression, but at the same time we must condemn the morally repulsive, such as the overt exploitation of children in some fashion photography or racist undertones in manipulated political photo-images.  Recognize that what is at stake is the very fabric of our ethical and political compass.  And it is a very difficult and fine line to tread between our views of morality and civil liberties.

So, we appear to be after motive.  Let’s consider again gun tottin’, bikkini clad Sarah Palin.  It seems unlikely that the goal there was to deceive or even that it was truly political.  No one really believed that the image was of Governor Palin.  The political right looked at it, laughed, and saw their image of her as a kick-ass politician.  The political left looked at  it, laughed, and saw their image of her as a gun-crazed kick-ass politician.  No real harm done.  Someone made this image for amusement.

Now consider, the image of the Statue of Liberty and the tornado.  Someone made that image possibly for fun.  Was their intent really to deceive or just to have fun?  If the intent was deception and political, perhaps to warn of the wrath of God or the dangers of global warning, then we may question its intrinsic morality – maybe that’s a strong word – its intrinsic acceptability.  But it is just as likely that any ulterior motives came from others, who exploited the image.

A very important point is that we don’t really know, for sure, who made these images.  They don’t come with a credit line.  There are lots of people trying to go “viral” on the web, and we can perhaps, understand that in terms of people seeking a moment of fame and glory. It’s a curious and all pervasive social phenomenon.  Perhaps they are seeking to be modern Herostratus’ – perhaps they share his motive.  However, it is fascinating when all this is accompanied with namelessness, when the price of fame is anonymity.