Portrait taken 2/6/2006

[glajciorz]

Glajciorz says "WOW !"

It was worth downloading it.

Thanks Ron.



greetings

Adam

[ron olson]

I have a question for the ruby laser portraitists out there: given that you believe (seemingly en masse) that the fundamental nature of far-red bordering on near-infrared light is not the culprit, what then do you believe is the main reason for the public's lack of acceptance? Could it have anything to do with the observation that between the photographic representations of ruby portraiture work and the real deal grating details -there's a fairly large disparity? Put another way: the eyes don't lie and as I continue nagging to forum contributors - do not attempt to judge holography via photography.

[Ron Michael]

Ron,



Per your quote 7/17/06:

"Personally, I don't think either ruby or YAG are good lasers to use for portraiture. Ruby light soaks into the skin, and washes all detail out of the eyes and lips. Green light is too harsh, and highlights all flaws on the skin. In my opinion, pulsed laser holography of people is doomed to the failure it's experienced to date until an RGB laser source is developed, and the image can be reduced in size (even slightly). Most people are "weirded to the bone" when they see a pulsed holographic portrait, regardless of the artistic design of the scene or its lighting."

Obviously we both agree that a full color picture would be much more pleasing. In your above quote, you reflected on issues with both wavelengths. It was one of your most even handed critiques I've heard from you.



Keep up the good work that you do and I hope you can appreciate the work of others and their techniques.

[BobH]

Quote:
"Personally, I don't think either ruby or YAG are good lasers to use for portraiture. Ruby light soaks into the skin, and washes all detail out of the eyes and lips. Green light is too harsh, and highlights all flaws on the skin. In my opinion, pulsed laser holography of people is doomed to the failure it's experienced to date until an RGB laser source is developed, and the image can be reduced in size (even slightly). Most people are "weirded to the bone" when they see a pulsed holographic portrait, regardless of the artistic design of the scene or its lighting."

The words above were mine, not RonO's, and I took a bit of flak from him for them. I agree with him, however, that photographs do not adequately convey the plusses and minuses of either wavelength choice for holographic portraiture.



Red light alone makes people look good, mostly because it washes out details, but that's only true for broadband red light such as that used in "red light districts". If people look better in green light only, why are there no "green light districts"?

[Ron Michael]

Ahhh... Thank you for that correction. I'm sure most would agree also that photographing holograms are hard and only conveys some details about the image.



Despite what many have been lead to believe,

wavelength arguments are like two scientist arguing over who's laser is better. Its foolish if they both work for the job. Arguing over 694nm or 532nm is also about as silly. Since if the film's resolution is at least 4000 to 5000 lp/mm then both wavelengths can achieve adequate spatial frequency resolution for most objects. To keep this simple, an object 30cm away and a hologram 30cm wide allow for the maximum resolution of the object details as long as they don't exceed the resolving power of the wavelength itself which basically 1.27lambda at its minimum. In other words I don't think someone's pore or eyelash is doing to be lost due to the film's or the wavelength's spatial frequency resolution. Now if we were talking microwaves/radio frequency then there could be a case. In the above example the film's resolution is below the diffraction limited resolution of the light itself which is 0.25um for the film and light's resolution is approximately more at 1.27 to 1.54(system losses can be more) * 0.694um or 0.532um. So it's a moot point. Infact techniques like H1/H2 allow for more error than the wavelength alone. The only thing I've seen is that the absorption/reflection is different on various skin tones and various frequency lighting either enhances it or not. For human eyes the whites reflect a little less than the skin on some individuals at 694 and that can be noticed sometimes.



All this wavelength arguing is boring, personally, I find that the majority of the CW images shown here in this gallery show more ingenuity and creativity that most pulse work anyway. The only fun about doing pulse work was trying to get quality without spatial filters. I've never had the time to personally thank all the contributors in this gallery about their work but I've always been impressed with their efforts and results.

My technical hat is off to them.

[ron olson]

"The only fun thing about doing pulse work was trying to get quality without spatial filters" R. Michael

While this has to be one of the most bizarre statements yet posted, it speaks to a recurring theme of mine. For many Forum contributors the "Here's how-I-did-it" seems much more important than the "See what-I-did" or, in light of what's being shown, maybe "what-have-I-done!!!???".

[MichaelH]

"The only fun thing about doing pulse work was trying to get quality without spatial filters" R. Michael
While this has to be one of the most bizarre statements yet posted, it speaks to a recurring theme of mine. For many Forum contributors the "Here's how-I-did-it" seems much more important than the "See what-I-did" or, in light of what's being shown, maybe "what-have-I-done!!!???".

I know what you mean. Meaning no disrespect at all, most people on the forum seem to be more interested in the process than the final outcome. It's a difference between tool-makers and tool-users. Many people who post on the forum are most interested in building tools (laser, plates, emulsion, etc). Personally I'm more interested in the final output.



RM's comment makes me think that he's most happy when he's tinkering with the tool. Works for me though. Without the tool-makers of the world, the tool-users like me wouldn't have the cheap and powerful lasers of today.

[BobH]

For many Forum contributors the "Here's how-I-did-it" seems much more important than the "See what-I-did"

That probably wouldn't be the case in an art, science, engineering, or physics forum, but this is a technology forum. Holography is a technique.



I certainly understand why artists, scientists, engineers and physicists would be bored with the majority of the discussions here. They're focused on the results of the technique, not the technique itself. It's unfortunate that many of those professionals can't accept the value of those who focus on the technique rather than the results, as there might then be actual jobs for holographers.

[ron olson]

While I will agree with you Bob that holography is a technique never the less many Forum contributors seem to think the technique stops at the point the camera and darkroom are functional. Photography is also a technique but you'll be hard pressed to find a photographic forum that dismisses content as irrelevant. To me (and I would assume to you) the technique is optimum when the light, the illumination, and the film best fit the subject matter.

[MichaelH]

While I will agree with you Bob that holography is a technique never the less many Forum contributors seem to think the technique stops at the point the camera and darkroom are functional. Photography is also a technique but you'll be hard pressed to find a photographic forum that dismisses content as irrelevant.

I strongly suspect that if a record existed of the discussions going on at the beginning of the age of photography you'd find more similarities to what's happening here than differences.



Photography has had more than 100 years to mature technically and artistically. Technically, holography isn't even *close* to achieving the ease of use that's possible with photography that then makes artistic expression truly possible by the majority of practitioners.



The problem for most home holographers is that we have to spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out *why* that last exposure didn't come out right rather than figuring out how we can change the image we did get to express a particular emotion/goal/whatever.



Most photographers don't have to fiddle with their equipment as much as holographers do, if they do, they spend a couple hundred $ and replace their (obviously) broken equipment.