Wizard Painting vs Wizard Photos
C²
I'm sure everyone has noticed that people in wizard paintings are unique in
that they are sentient (at least we know the can see and hear the outside
world), and they can interact with their external surroundings (at least
verbally), can enjoy a meal (unlike ghosts) thought perhaps only things
which appear in other paintings. They express emotions and most seem fairly
intelligent. You could almost call them alive (at least in two dimensions).
However people in wizard photos seems only to be able to move about on the
page and able to give an indication of how they felt only at the time of the
photo was being taken (its a little unclear whether they can hear or just
respond to manual prodding - but if they can hear they don't seem able to
learn anything - unlike paintings).
In the case of photos we know all that is necessary is developing ordinary
muggle film in special potions, but what about the portraits? Does the
wizard sitting for a portrait painting have to do something to transfer his
personality and intellect to the painting, or is it all up to the painter?
Richard Eney
C² <cche...@comcast.net> wrote:
>What is the distinction between these two magical records of a persons life?
>
>I'm sure everyone has noticed that people in wizard paintings are unique in
>that they are sentient (at least we know the can see and hear the outside
>world), and they can interact with their external surroundings (at least
>verbally), can enjoy a meal (unlike ghosts) thought perhaps only things
>which appear in other paintings. They express emotions and most seem fairly
>intelligent. You could almost call them alive (at least in two dimensions).
>
>However people in wizard photos seems only to be able to move about on the
>page and able to give an indication of how they felt only at the time of the
>learn anything - unlike paintings).
Maybe nobody bothers to tell them anything. The photos that were broken
in book 5 gave little shrieks, so they can make sounds sometimes.
>In the case of photos we know all that is necessary is developing ordinary
>muggle film in special potions, but what about the portraits? Does the
>wizard sitting for a portrait painting have to do something to transfer his
>personality and intellect to the painting, or is it all up to the painter?
We don't really know, but I think it may involve house elves. On the other
hand, since ordinary photos made with ordinary film and ordinary cameras
can be made magical by the developing process, maybe an ordinary painting
can also be made magical after it is completed.
=Tamar
Tim Bruening
"C²" wrote:
> What is the distinction between these two magical records of a persons life?
>
> I'm sure everyone has noticed that people in wizard paintings are unique in
> that they are sentient (at least we know the can see and hear the outside
> world), and they can interact with their external surroundings (at least
> verbally), can enjoy a meal (unlike ghosts) thought perhaps only things
> which appear in other paintings. They express emotions and most seem fairly
> intelligent. You could almost call them alive (at least in two dimensions).
>
> However people in wizard photos seems only to be able to move about on the
> page and able to give an indication of how they felt only at the time of the
> photo was being taken (its a little unclear whether they can hear or just
> respond to manual prodding - but if they can hear they don't seem able to
> learn anything - unlike paintings).
In OOTP, the photo Percy had walked out of the photo of the Weasley family, just
like the real Percy had walked out on his family.
Tim Bruening
Richard Eney wrote:
Are any house elves harmed in the portrait process?
Richard Eney
Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Richard Eney wrote:
>> C² <cche...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> >In the case of photos we know all that is necessary is developing ordinary
>> >muggle film in special potions, but what about the portraits? Does the
>> >wizard sitting for a portrait painting have to do something to transfer his
>> >personality and intellect to the painting, or is it all up to the painter?
>>
>> We don't really know, but I think it may involve house elves. On the other
>> hand, since ordinary photos made with ordinary film and ordinary cameras
>> can be made magical by the developing process, maybe an ordinary painting
>> can also be made magical after it is completed.
>
>Are any house elves harmed in the portrait process?
It depends on whether they need house-elf colored paint...
=Tamar
Elizabeth Naime
that's mentioned, so it could be either one.
And here is a spoiler for HPB:
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
.
s
p
a
c
e
.
d
o
.
n
o
t
.
c
r
o
s
s
.
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
.
l
i
n
e
.
.
.
.
.
Also -- I had always assumed a painter painted the paintings, just as a
photographer took the photographs. But in HBP we see a new portrait
arrive... did someone actually paint that, while Dumbledore was alive,
and who rushed it into the office and put it up in time for us to see
it? (Well, house elves could have, I suppose...)
Or do paintings, at least some paintings, just appear? Or are arranged
for somehow in advance, and are done when the subject dies??
I thought some (many!) of the portraits were of fictitous people, but I
sort of kind of wonder about this now. I *definitely* wonder about
Dumbledore's portrait though!
Elspeth, Hufflepuff (dismissed)
Broom: O-Cedar
Wand: Seven and a half inches, cedar, graphite core
Pets: Too numerous to be familiars
reply-to address: my name @kc.rr.com
chmod a+x /bin/Laden
Toon
Don't know about painters, which seems logical, but Hosue Elevs do
everything else, why not painting installation?
Richard Eney
Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
> Elizabeth Naime <ena...@xyzzy.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Also -- I had always assumed a painter painted the paintings, just as
>>a photographer took the photographs. But in HBP we see a new portrait
>>arrive... did someone actually paint that, while Dumbledore was alive,
>>and who rushed it into the office and put it up in time for us to see
>>it? (Well, house elves could have, I suppose...)
>>
>>Or do paintings, at least some paintings, just appear? Or are arranged
>>for somehow in advance, and are done when the subject dies??
>>
>>I thought some (many!) of the portraits were of fictitous people, but
>>I sort of kind of wonder about this now. I *definitely* wonder about
>>Dumbledore's portrait though!
>
>Don't know about painters, which seems logical, but Hosue Elves do
>everything else, why not painting installation?
Dobby painted a picture of Harry, that looked like a charcoal drawing.
Maybe house-elves do all the magical portraits, but they don't look
like real people until the person dies?
IIRC, Dean Thomas is an artist. We may find out more in book 7.
=Tamar
richard e white
I don't think all the portrits are the same. In the case of the
headmasters portrait I think it is set up in advance. JKR said that the
headmasters office is linked a bit with the headmaster and that when a head
master leaves part of him stays. I think that the portrits are a symbol of
this. So I think there is some sort of ceremony that links the new head
master to the school. I am guessing that the portrit has something to do
with this and that the portrit was just kept else where until DD died. tho
I may just be thinking this because the thought of dd talking to his own
portrit stuck in my mind.
--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Richard Eney
Elizabeth Naime <ena...@xyzzy.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is it ordinary muggle film or special wizarding film? I don't think
>that's mentioned, so it could be either one.
It's ordinary muggle film. Colin Creevy brings his muggle camera and film
to school and learns that if he develops the film magically, the pictures
will move.
=Tamar
Tim Bruening
Richard Eney wrote:
Can I bring my digital camera?
Elizabeth Naime
-0000,
It *looks like* an ordinary muggle camera, but that isn't really
established. Lots of Potterverse things look like muggle things, e.g.
the Hogwarts Express and the children's luggage. I don't think any
specific mention of film is made, either. Colin could have picked up the
camera in Diagon Alley; muggle origin isn't established. And of course
the film needs to be developed in the right potion for the pictures to
move; this doesn't say anything about the developing and not the film or
camera being responsible, though. The wizarding world seems a bit behind
in some ways... it wasn't that long ago that muggles had to develop
their own film, after all. And muggles who wished to do so could
purchase the necessary chemicals in a kit, as recently as my own
childhood.
Richard Eney
Elizabeth Naime <ena...@xyzzy.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Quoth dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>>
>>>Is it ordinary muggle film or special wizarding film? I don't think
>>>that's mentioned, so it could be either one.
>>
>>It's ordinary muggle film. Colin Creevy brings his muggle camera and film
>>to school and learns that if he develops the film magically, the pictures
>>will move.
>
>It *looks like* an ordinary muggle camera, but that isn't really
>established. Lots of Potterverse things look like muggle things, e.g.
>the Hogwarts Express and the children's luggage. I don't think any
>specific mention of film is made, either. Colin could have picked up the
>camera in Diagon Alley; muggle origin isn't established. And of course
>the film needs to be developed in the right potion for the pictures to
>move; this doesn't say anything about the developing and not the film or
>camera being responsible, though.
I think that "A boy in my dormitory told me that if I develop the film
in the right potion, the pictures'll move" is a pretty clear statement
that it's the developing potion that makes the picture able to move
by magic. Without it they wouldn't move, and would seem to be ordinary
muggle photos.
Since it does nothing else unusual, I think the simple assumption is
the most likely: Colin brought his camera from home.
> The wizarding world seems a bit behind
>in some ways... it wasn't that long ago that muggles had to develop
>their own film, after all. And muggles who wished to do so could
>purchase the necessary chemicals in a kit, as recently as my own
>childhood.
In the 1980s there were kits sold for people to develop color film
in a home studio. That has largely been supplanted by the ready
availability of one-hour photo developing and more recently by
digital "photography". (Digital photos show those little pixel
edges intead of the clean edges of a real film photo; unfortunately,
most "photo" printers digitize it anyway, but I still prefer real
film. - signed, A. Dinosaur)
The wizard photo processing seems to produce something like a
more elaborate "grating" picture, I've forgotten the correc term
already, the ones made with a sheet of little pyramids that have
a slightly different picture on each side so the picture looks
different according to what angle you look from. Wizard pictures
probably move the pyramids by Brownian motion; the real magic is
in making the images able to squeak when broken or move a bit more
when nudged with a wand.
=Tamar
Elizabeth Naime
-0000,
>I think that "A boy in my dormitory told me that if I develop the film
>in the right potion, the pictures'll move" is a pretty clear statement
>that it's the developing potion that makes the picture able to move
>by magic. Without it they wouldn't move, and would seem to be ordinary
>muggle photos.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Mind you, I'm not saying it
couldn't be all in the development, just that I don't think Colin's
statement indicates that rather than an 11-year-old's enthusiasm about
developing the film from his first camera.
I've gone digital, BTW, but recently dug out my old camera and bought
new film for it. Found I was missing not only the old controls (you have
to read the manual three times to AVOID autofocus and autoeverything
with the digital I've got) but, surprisingly, the bit about having to
wait to see how it comes out rather than getting instant feedback. Old
dinosaurs indeed!
David Sueme
C² wrote:
what about the portraits? Does the
> wizard sitting for a portrait painting have to do something to transfer his
> personality and intellect to the painting, or is it all up to the painter?
1. To a great extent, I really could give a [expletive deleted]. It
happens this way - accept the premise and move on. Yer looking too
closely.
2. But if you absolutely must look closely, then inquire about
something interesting. WHEN does some of the wizard's intellect get
transferred to the painting? All we've seen is paintings of dead
wizards - would a painting of a live wizard also behave as the
paintings in the Head's office? Could a painting and a wizard get in
an argument? Could the painting win the argument? Could a painting of
Dumbledore have convinced Dumbledore to stay in that last night?
3. See [1] above!
The Dave
Richard Eney
David Sueme <dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>2. But if you absolutely must look closely, then inquire about
>something interesting. WHEN does some of the wizard's intellect get
>transferred to the painting? All we've seen is paintings of dead
>wizards - would a painting of a live wizard also behave as the
>paintings in the Head's office?
Not known, since we haven't yet seen a painting of a live wizard
as far as we know. Oh, aside from the mysteriously dark and murky
daub of Harry that Dobby gave him for Christmas. (I think that is
probably our answer - a magic portrait is dark until the wizard
dies, when the connection pulls the persona into the portrait while
the soul goes beyond the veil. But I could be wrong.)
>Could a painting and a wizard get in an argument?
Once when she was feeling annoyed, the Fat Lady lied to Harry
about the password having changed.
>Could the painting win the argument?
Yes.
>Could a painting of Dumbledore have convinced Dumbledore
>to stay in that last night?
Possibly. The painting would be giving the conservative viewpoint
of a more relaxed Dd. Dd used the Pensieve to examine his thoughts
at more emotional distance; a portrait could be used the same way,
if a live wizard could have an "active" portrait.
=Tamar
Kish
> In article <1131088059.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> David Sueme <dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>2. But if you absolutely must look closely, then inquire about
>>something interesting. WHEN does some of the wizard's intellect get
>>transferred to the painting? All we've seen is paintings of dead
>>wizards - would a painting of a live wizard also behave as the
>>paintings in the Head's office?
>
>
> Not known, since we haven't yet seen a painting of a live wizard
> as far as we know. Oh, aside from the mysteriously dark and murky
> daub of Harry that Dobby gave him for Christmas.
And all the vain paintings of Lockhart.
David Sueme
Kish wrote:
> >>2. But if you absolutely must look closely, then inquire about
> >>something interesting. WHEN does some of the wizard's intellect get
> >>transferred to the painting?
> > Not known, since we haven't yet seen a painting of a live wizard
> > as far as we know. Oh, aside from the mysteriously dark and murky
> > daub of Harry that Dobby gave him for Christmas.
>
> And all the vain paintings of Lockhart.
That's "intellect"? Actually, you have a point. The Lockhart
paintings do reflect the personality of a living wizard.
Does this get discounted because it is in one of the first two books?
Harry Potter before things got Sirius?
Dave
Richard Eney
They weren't paintings, in the book. The book only says Lockhart
had photos of himself all over his office. The paintings were in
the movie.
=Tamar
David Sueme
Richard Eney wrote:
> They weren't paintings, in the book. The book only says Lockhart
> had photos of himself all over his office. The paintings were in
> the movie.
I stand corrected.
Dave
Tim Bruening
Richard Eney wrote:
Could images from a digital camera be developed magically into moving
pictures?
Here in Minnesota
The more "tech" something was; the less likely it would work at Hogwarts. I
doubt that a digital camera would even work at Hogwarts for even regular
pictures.
Ken
james
hogwarts
"Here in Minnesota" <neverwill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xPXFf.12511$YT1....@newsfe09.phx...
Tim Bruening
Richard Eney wrote:
Could images from a digital camera be developed magically into moving
pictures?
On the Chronicles of Narnia DVD, I saw looping video of the Narnia
landscape in a frame that looked like a portrait.
My girlfriend has a picture of a waterfall that lights up to look like a
moving waterfall.
David Sueme
Tim Bruening wrote:
> Could images from a digital camera be developed magically into moving
> pictures?
No. Computers, television, all that sort of muggle tech nonsense
doesn't work in the wizarding world.
> My girlfriend has a picture of a waterfall that lights up to look like a
> moving waterfall.
Does it also mention "Hamm's" beer?
Dave
Tim Bruening
David Sueme wrote:
Nope.
Tim Bruening
David Sueme wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> > Could images from a digital camera be developed magically into moving
> > pictures?
>
> No. Computers, television, all that sort of muggle tech nonsense
> doesn't work in the wizarding world.
Couldn't magic be used to make such devices work? I've read of a magic
computer in the "Castle Perious" series by Le Sprague deCamp.
Thom Madura
>
> David Sueme wrote:
>
>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>
>>> Could images from a digital camera be developed magically into moving
>>> pictures?
Why - there are already digital video cameras.
Richard Eney
Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Tim Bruening wrote:
>>
>> David Sueme wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could images from a digital camera be developed magically into moving
>>>> pictures?
>
>
>Why - there are already digital video cameras.
I think the question is, would digital images work in a magical environment.
They are essentially electromagnetic patterns, but their existence doesn't
depend on electric current flowing. We know Arthur managed to make magic
work in a muggle car that otherwise operated normally, so some combinations
can work. In the limited version of "electricity doesn't work at Hogwarts"
that JKR uses" (ignoring the electromagnetic field systems that keep our
brains, nervous system, etc. working), maybe a digital image could be
animated by magic in a blend of magic and muggle technology.
>>> No. Computers, television, all that sort of muggle tech nonsense
>>> doesn't work in the wizarding world.
>>
>> Couldn't magic be used to make such devices work? I've read of a magic
>> computer in the "Castle Perilous" series by Le Sprague deCamp.
That would be "The Compleat Enchanter_, right? By Fletcher Pratt and
L.Sprague deCamp. Classic stories and well worth hunting up.
=Tamar
Thom Madura
That depends on which Magical World - Samantha's TV work great. I prefer
her magical world to Harry's - more up to date.