July 6, 2018 Volume 24, Number 27 |
Research and Education |
General Interest |
Network Tools |
Revisited |
In the News |
Research and EducationBack to Top | |
General InterestBack to Top | |
Network ToolsBack to Top | |
RevisitedBack to Top | |
In the NewsBack to Top | |
New Quantitative Study Finds That Lightning Is Consistently Underestimated in Paintings | |
Do You Know What Lightning Really Looks Like? Why Is It So Hard to Paint Lightning? Why Artists Have So Much Trouble Painting Lightning How realistic are painted lightnings? Quantitative comparison of the morphology of painted and real lightnings: a psychophysical approach What's the Difference Between a Camera and a Human Eye? How to Photograph Lightning: Helpful Tips for Nailing the Shot In the late nineteenth-century, photographer William Jennings noticed that the lightning he saw in paintings did not match what he saw in stormy skies. To demonstrate this inaccuracy, he became one of the first to capture lightning in a photograph. More than a century later, Jennings' story inspired a team of researchers at Eoetvoes Lorand University in Budapest to quantitatively compare artistic depictions of lightning to photographic images. The results of their study were published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A in June 2018. After using computer image processing to comparatively analyze 100 paintings and 400 photographs depicting lightning, the researchers found that paintings consistently tended to show far fewer branches in bolts of lightning than photographs, with no more than eleven branches shown in paintings. The researchers also had ten people look at a total of 180 photographs of lightning, showing each photo for less than a second to simulate the speed of a lightning strike. After each photo, the subjects were asked to guess the number of branches in the lightning bolt. This experiment found that the test subjects could guess the number accurately up to eleven branches--for numbers beyond eleven, their guesses became increasingly less accurate. These results suggest that artists painted fewer lightning branches due to limitations in human perception, whereas a camera has fewer of those limitations. [JDC] The first three links take readers to summaries of this study, all of which are accompanied by illustrative paintings and photographs. These summaries were written by Steph Yin at The New York Times, Jessica Leigh Hester at Atlas Obscura, and Meilan Solly of Smithsonian. For readers who wish to learn more about the specifics of the researchers' work, the fourth link takes readers to their study on which the first three articles are based. For those interested in how the human eye operates differently than a camera, the fifth link is an accessible explanation by Haje Jan Kamps. Finally, those interested in learning how to photograph lightning using today's technology will want to check out the sixth link, a tutorial by Jim Reed, which is accompanied by numerous images. |