moving pictures ... paintings vs. photos

[joym999 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 19983

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Matthew Dawdy" <matt.dawdy at g...> wrote:
> I just has another thought on the moving pictures.
> 
> A painting takes longer than a picture.  So, a picture is pretty 
much a one
> frame snapshot of someone's life -- how they are feeling in the 
picture
> indicates how they were feeling when it was taken, probably.  
Happy, sad,
> etc -- one emotion or state of mind.
> 
> A painting takes so long, they are bound to go through plenty of 
other
> emotions during the sitting.  Which gives the characters in the 
paintings
> more depth if you will.
> 
It takes a lot longer to create a painting than it does to create a 
photo if you are talking about snapshots, i.e. the kind in which the 
film is developed and printed by machines (or translated by computer, 
these days).  However, if you are talking about the more artistic 
sort of photography, it can take a very long time to create a photo 
and a lot of emotion can go in to it.  I studied photography in 
college, and would spend many many hours in the darkroom trying to 
get the right effect.

However, the photos we have seen so far in the HP books are all of 
the snapshot variety, so Matthews argument holds.  I just wonder if 
the wizarding variety of *artistic* photos have as much character as 
the paintings.  That would be pretty cool.  If you had a beautiful, 
artistic photo of an airplane, maybe it could fly around your house 
from photo to photo, pick up your 5 year old self and your Grandpa 
and your cat when he was a kitten, and fly over to see your trip to 
the Grand Canyon.

--Joywitch