Is this where the rainbow is? Nah, its electronic circuit prototyping. It works, too, as a parallel port connected display and fast AD converter with fast buffer storage (O(50MHz).

those wires happen to have those colours, they were the same 25 years

ago from the same supplier, I always bought them for their function.

 

Would such picture only appeal to electronically challenged ?

Would such picture only appeal to electronically challenged

I don't know about that. But I can feel the tension in this photograph (the inclusion of the hard hat is the clincher!) because, as one who is totally electronically challenged, I get the feeling that if I connect a wire to the wrong circuit then what is connected to all those wires and circuits will blow the entire building that surrounds it to kingdom come... Also, thanks for assuring me that this Rube Goldberg looking arrangement actually "works"!

I would like this shot more if the lighting, colour and composition was upgraded. It needs more dramatic lighting, a tighter angle etc. Outside the central bundles, there is nothing of importance. Tighten it up and change the angle to make it more dramatic.

Typical unclear digital and poor optics. With all that tech knowledge you must know by now that in two years your digital camera will be on the technology scrapheap, that all you have saved on CD ROMS will be lost due to the dyes fading, and that the stuff in your hard disk can be digested by a virus any moment. As a result, I dunno why intelligent people jump onto experimental, unsharp, drab digits..

Well, in fact harddisc stored images could last many decades, when treated right, as can certain CD's, and before they fade, they can be mostly perfectly copied time and time again, so this might be a bit volatile technology, but the bits *can* be there to stay! I agree (seeing the picture again) that jpg has gotten to the 100k limit once more, and of course the picture isn't a glossy one, but I disagree with the idea that eastetics are out, and in fact this is an interesting subject, especially in the context of a photonet comment where ALL pictures are digital and seen on usually a far from perfect display, which is how such limitations can be met, and, preferably also *without* the obligate 'fashyness' of lets say small web page pictures or, framkly, the just as obligate impossed glossyness of most of the photonet high ranking pictures. On 2 different screens I tried it on the picture has an interesting feel to it, and it wasn't just a snapshot (though did certainly not take hours..).

 

Some pictures of the week seem to underline my point, which of course isn't that dodgy pictures ought to make a new grunge run the fashion in photography.

 

In fact, some pictures I made more recently (with a HP 5 megapixel digicam) can compete with many 'analog' pictures, and in more than one sense probably the fidelity of the digican is higher than corrosion processes of traditional photography. The trying out of 'analog' saturation and bleeding techniques and camera effects is of course also interesting in the digital domain, and of course most cheap digtital cams are no alternative to that. But they are cheap and easy, and don't require chemical processing.