FORKNI-L
Digest - 7 Oct 2008 to 8 Oct 2008 (#2008-224)
Wed, 8 Oct 2008
There are 10 messages totalling 287 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Card Exchange this year?
2. Mirrors.... (4)
3. Mirrors (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:26:29 -0500
From: eowyn23@j.......
Subject: Re: Card Exchange this year?
Hi Y'all!
Kristen wrote:
It's been a rough year for me, and every year receiving all the FK cards
is a major treat for me. Just wondering if anyone is organizing? :)
First, I apologize to everyone whose birthday hasn't been announced in
the last several weeks. I've been extremely busy and when I haven't been
busy I've just vegetated to try and recover! With regard to the
announcements, if it's all right with y'all I'll resume announcing
birthdays very soon but they probably won't have the significant people
or events in them. At least people will know who's getting older and
therefore better :) If I can get my RL rearranged so that I have a
little more time, I'll resume the significant people and events
announcements.
I am planning to do the Card Exchange again this year. I will post
details nearer to the end of October/beginning of November.
Terri
eowyn23@j.......
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:38:21 EDT
From: Lori Isabella <LDukie913@a.......>
Subject: Re: Mirrors....
In a message dated 10/7/2008 4:00:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
LISTSERV@l....... writes:
Was there ever an episode where there was a scene
in which they worked things so that one of the vampires actually was *not*
visible in a mirror?
Not that I recall. Probably the most obvious "no reflection in the mirror"
thing would have been in the rear view mirror of the caddy... it there had been
one!
It seems to me that the whole "Dark Side of the Glass" musical sequence would
not have made much sense if the intention (whether shown or not) was that the
vamps would not have reflections.
Just out of interest, does anybody know if the rationale for vamps not
having reflections was because they "had no soul"?
Lori
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:24:18 -0700
From: KC Monroe <kaysea1228@y.......>
Subject: Re: Mirrors....
Cameras use mirrors to project the image to the film! The whole idea
of vampires not appearing in mirrors never worked in FK because of
the frequent use of photographs. There were plenty of Nick through
the years including his badge and even pics of LaCroix and Janette.
KC
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:40:19 -0400
From: Michele Azuddin <mobody@g.......>
Subject: Re: Mirrors....
Thats a really interesting concept. I wonder why vampires would fear being
photographed if their image could not be captured? Of course, in FK thats a
moot point
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM, KC Monroe <kaysea1228@y.......> wrote:
> Cameras use mirrors to project the image to the film! The whole idea of
> vampires not appearing in mirrors never worked in FK because of the frequent
> use of photographs.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:50:35 -0400
From: Roger Armstrong <eriklebeau@g.......>
Subject: Re: Mirrors....
> Thats a really interesting concept. I wonder why vampires would fear being
> photographed if their image could not be captured? Of course, in FK thats a
> moot point
For that reason in itself. It would be bound to cause talk when the
photo is developed and someone was missing. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:37:32 -0700
From: cindy clark <badwolf15895@s.......>
Subject: Mirrors
Coming out of lurkdom for a little bit, now that the computer is back
up and running.
-For that reason in itself. It would be bound to cause talk when the
-photo is developed and someone was missing. :)
Exactly. St. Germain, Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's vampire, keeps a wax
dummy just for inconvenient things like driver's license and
passports. He photographs, but it's always blurry. Can you imagine,
taking a group photo at the presinct picnic, and having Nick be the
only one who looks digitally blurred out? To start with, he'd have a
tough time (un)living down the guys teasing him about what he was
doing or saying that got him digitally edited, but if it happened
more than once...
-Just out of interest, does anybody know if the rationale for vamps not
-having reflections was because they "had no soul"?
P.N. Elrod theorizes, in one of her Jack Fleming stories, that since
they have died once, vampires are slightly out-of-phase with present
time. So, they cannot reflect in mirrors, which are static within
present time. Jack, unlike Nick, definitely believes he has a soul,
tarnished though it may be.
Most people have minds like concrete: mixed up or permanently set.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 20:23:13 -0700
From: ChicagoMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@y.......>
Subject: Re: Mirrors
I don't recall that being said, though someone else might. But one
thing that would point to them having a reflection is the old photos
in several eps. Cameras apparently use mirrors to operate and if they
didn't reflect, they wouldn't show up.
Mel
Was there ever an episode where there was a scene
in which they worked things so that one of the vampires actually was *not*
visible in a mirror?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:56:26 -0600
From: Angela Gottfred <agottfre@t.......>
Subject: Re: Mirrors
Modern SLR cameras use mirrors to project the image to the *viewfinder*. The
mirror is moved out from behind the lens when the photo is actually taken.
(That's why the viewfinder goes black for an instant when you press the
shutter release.) But it would certainly make framing and focusing the photo
more challenging. A knowledgeable photographer, though, would simply measure
the distance to the vampire subject, and set the focus ring accordingly. In
fact, if you've been in a photo studio where the photographer touched a bit
of string to the end of your nose, that's what the string was for - to put
you in precisely the correct distance from the lens.
Antique cameras (the kind where the photographer hides behind it under a
dark covering - like this: http://preview.tinyurl.com/antiquephotog) don't
have a mirror at all - the photographer hiding under that blanket-like
thingy is doing it so he can see the image projected directly through the
lens onto a frosted glass plate at the back of the camera, behind the lens.
Once everything is focused & framed, the glass is taken out, the
photographic plate or film is put in instead, and an exposure is made.
Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:49:37 +0100
From: Lorin <vachesang@1.......>
Subject: Re: Mirrors
Angela Gottfred wrote:
> Modern SLR cameras use mirrors to project the image to the *viewfinder*.
> The
> mirror is moved out from behind the lens when the photo is actually taken.
Ah, that makes sense then. So the photographer would not *see* a vampire,
but they would show up on the photograph. In a large group shot, the
photographer would probably not even notice anything amiss.
> Antique cameras <snip> don't have a mirror at all - the
> photographer hiding under that blanket-like thingy is doing it so
> he can see the image
> projected directly through the lens onto a frosted glass plate at the back
> of the camera, behind the lens.
So our vampires would only have had real problems in any situation where an
individual photograph would be taken by an SLR camera. Back before SLR
cameras, they would show up just fine to the photographer; I assume they
would show up with no problem with digital cameras, as they have no mirrors
in them at all (at least, I assume so - I'm no photography expert!). It
would just be from whenever SLR cameras were introduced up until digital
cameras became the 'norm' that they would need an alternate way to produce a
photograph.
FK kind of side-stepped the issue, but I think the only 'modern' photograph
we saw of Nick was on his badge. I may be wrong! Hey, another reason to
re-watch...
I know there were a couple of photographs from the 50's but were SLRs in use
then? I assume television and video wouldn't be a problem either?
Lorin
Vachesang@1.......
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 09:13:55 -0500
From: Nancy Kaminski <nancykam@c.......>
Subject: Re: Mirrors
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Lorin <vachesang@1.......> wrote:
> Ah, that makes sense then. So the photographer would not *see* a vampire,
> but they would show up on the photograph. In a large group shot, the
> photographer would probably not even notice anything amiss.
The supposed reason that vampires don't show up in mirrors was that,
traditionally, mirrors were glass backed with silver. The silver,
being a "pure" metal, rejects the vampire, and thus will not reflect
the vampire's image.
Following this logic, vampires cannot be photographed---because
photographic film uses silver in the emulsion. This holds true in
early photography as well as today. (In the hospital where I worked in
the 80s and 90s, x-rays were recycled to reclaim the silver on the
films.)
> So our vampires would only have had real problems in any situation where an
> individual photograph would be taken by an SLR camera. Back before SLR
> cameras, they would show up just fine to the photographer; I assume they
> would show up with no problem with digital cameras, as they have no mirrors
> in them at all (at least, I assume so - I'm no photography expert!).
Nope. It's not the mirror, it's the silver IN the mirror---and the
film. So vampires wouldn't show up in antique photographs or modern
photographs that are taken using film. Digital cameras would not be
subject to this limitation, so a digital camera (still or video) would
be able to capture the vampire's image.
Nancy Kaminski
nancykam@c.......
------------------------------
End of FORKNI-L Digest - 7 Oct 2008 to 8 Oct 2008 (#2008-224)
*************************************************************
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
