At 12:59 PM 8/11/2002, you wrote:
>Audio seems to trigger fantasy and emotional memories better than pictures.
>We see what we see and it is mostly very clear to us what it is. But when we
>hear something, we are free to fantasize as much as we want.
Good point - I think that I got a much better impression of Aaron's trip
through his recordings than I do from a photo essay - but then most of us
are audio-oriented, I'm sure. Some folks need to see what they're
experiencing for it to register.
>Personally, when I listen to a recording I have made, I remember very well
>what the place looked like, the weather, the smells and other
>circumstancies. I also remember what I felt like, excited or whatever. (Or
>perhaps I just THINK that I remember well...? Hm.) Well, no picturess can
>give me that.
>I wonder if this is true in general, or true for some individuals only?
It is not true for everyone, I know. I know people who get nothing at all
from audio, but who can really get teary-eyed over the right photo.
>I often hear wildlife recordings far too much filtered. Worst case, you even
>hear artifacts. I often find digital filters on audio software far too
>drastical.
Again, it often depends on the purpose of the recording. If you intend to
photo illustrate one single aspect of the subject, you want a tight crop
and possible little depth-of-field, just as you may want a highly filtered
sound to illustrate a particular call of some bird.
Doug
Doug Von Gausig
Clarkdale, Arizona, USA
Moderator
Nature Recordists e-mail group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|