[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
I would agree that is it not impossib;le for a photo, especially a
high-quality one, to permit an observer to being able to discern things
others can't.Some may, as Dave pointed out, simply give up or not spend
too much time on scanning for interpretation of the finer elements, and
ignore everything else. This doesn't mean seeing the thing in person is
neccessarily a bad thing, of course, and I know Dave would love t see them
himself. It is unfortunate that a digital library of all bones catalogued
does not exist nor will exist for a vry long time, though the NSF grant to
the AMNH is apparently geared towards establishing such a one for some
dinosaurs and birds proper.
There are those who, like myself, feel that seeing the bone in person
would be better for the realm of determining characters or features used
in comparison than from photographs; no matter the resolution, photos will
always lack the appropriate resolution of the human eye, and this always
obscures details. Of course, some details have only been obvious from
certain types of film exposure, such as the UV photographs of fossil birds
and *Pelecanimimus* in the last decade. 3-D modelling has provided further
insight, and a different way of interpreting the fossil or examining it,
but no real way to observing missing bits for finding obvious
"character-worthy" parts of it.
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
- From: David Peters <firstname.lastname@example.org>