110-117 MILOSLAV DRUCKMULLER / HOW MANY ECLIPSES / INTERVIEW BY DEREK THOMSON

[...DEREK THOMSON / YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS ARE BEAUTIFUL. WHEN YOU’RE MAKING THEM, ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT BEAUTY OR SCIENCE?

MILOSLAV DRUCKMULLER / IT’S NOT POSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THE BEAUTY FROM THE SCIENCE. FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, MY JOB— MATHEMATICS— IS BEAUTIFUL. BECAUSE THESE GEOMETRICAL BODIES, THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FRACTAL SITES & SO ON, ARE EXTREMELY NICE MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS. IT’S HARD TO SAY WHAT MY ORIGINAL MOTIVATION FOR THE ECLIPSE PHOTOGRAPHS WAS— SCIENCE OR BEAUTY. IT’S ALL CONNECTED. I CAN’T SAY WHETHER THE SCIENCE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE BEAUTY OR VICE VERSA. IT’S EVERYTHING BOUND TOGETHER.

DT / IF THE PHOTOS HAD NO SCIENTIFIC VALUE WOULD YOU STILL FIND THEM BEAUTIFUL?

MD / THAT’S AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I’VE SEEN A LOT OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSES, PROCESSED IN MANY, MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. THE MAJORITY OF ECLIPSE CHASERS ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR BEAUTY, NOT FOR SCIENTIFIC VALUE. FOR ME, IMAGES THAT ARE SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL. PROCESSING THAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC OR ARTIFICIAL DEGRADES THE BEAUTY. THE PHENOMENON ITSELF IS SO BEAUTIFUL THAT ANY PROCESSING CAN ONLY DECREASE THE BEAUTY.

DT / I’M CURIOUS. IS THERE AN ETHICAL CODE FOR ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY? IS THERE AN UNDERSTANDING AMONG YOU & YOUR COLLEAGUES THAT YOU SHOULDN’T MANIPULATE THE IMAGES, FOR EXAMPLE BY ADDING COLOURS THAT AREN’T REALLY THERE?

MD / THAT’S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION, WITH NO EASY ANSWER. WHEN CLASSICAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS INVENTED 150 YEARS AGO A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE HAPPY THAT THERE WAS AT LAST SOME SORT OF OBJECTIVE RECORDING OF REALITY. WE WERE ABLE TO SAY 'IF IT’S IN A PHOTO, IT’S REAL'. CLASSICAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS IMPROVED WITH THE INVENTION OF COLOUR PROCESSING. THE REPRESENTATION OF REALITY BECAME BETTER & BETTER. THEN THERE WAS A TURNING POINT— THE MOMENT WHEN DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS INVENTED, & IT BECAME POSSIBLE TO PROCESS IMAGES ON A COMPUTER. NOWADAYS WE’RE ABLE TO TURN AN IMAGE INTO WHATEVER WE WANT IT TO BE. THERE’S ENORMOUS PRESSURE ON SCIENTISTS. WE HAVE TO WORK IN SUCH A WAY THAT EVERY MOMENT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE PHOTOSHOP, YOU’RE ABLE TO MODIFY AN IMAGE IN ANY WAY. IT IS PERFECT, BUT IT IS DANGEROUS.
NOWADAYS IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROCESS ANY IMAGE IN MANY, MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO USE IMAGE PROCESSING FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES MUST KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE’S DOING AT EACH STAGE. FIRST, YOU MUST DEFINE WHAT YOU WANT TO VISUALISE, THEN FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THERE. IT’S DANGEROUS TO USE MATHEMATICAL PROCEDURES WITHOUT A CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE AS THE END PRODUCT. I KNOW IT SEEMS STRANGE, BUT FIRST YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT IS REAL, THEN FIND A MATHEMATICAL PROCEDURE TO MAKE IT. BECAUSE IT’S NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY ‘THIS IMAGE IS CORRECT, THIS IMAGE IS NOT CORRECT.’ THERE’S NO CRITERION TO PROVE WHICH IS CORRECT & WHICH IS INCORRECT...]


/ EXCERPT FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH MILOSLAV DRUCKMULLER BY DEREK THOMSON. ENTIRE ARTICLE ONLY IN THE PRINTED EDITION OF SOME/THINGS MAGAZINE CHAPTER003 / FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE