moving pictures ... paintings vs. photos

[Doreen Rich]

No: HPFGUIDX 19656

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Tamfiiris <tamf at m...> wrote:
> Doreen Rich wrote:
> 
> > Does it specifically *say* somewhere in the books or in a JKR
> > discussion, that *only* paintings' subjects can move about, from
> > painting to painting? Does it *say* that photo subjects can not 
move
> > from photo to photo, or from photo to painting? Or are we just to
> > assume, since only the paintings' subjects have done it so far, 
that
> > the photos' subjects can not? I am really curious about this one.
> 
> well, i don't have any concrete evidence, sorry. but i think we can
> assume that photos mainly don't move around much, snapshots of the
> moment as they are. they didn't seem to have done so in Harry's 
photo
> album of his parents, for example. i assume more 'soul' or magic
> substance has gone into creating the paintings, giving them more 
life
> and character.
> 
> ciao
> Tamf

********************
In Dumbledore's photo, on his trading card, he leaves the picture.

In the photo, that Colin Creevy took, (so it is not just heresay) 
Harry moves completely out of the picture and Lockhart tries to drag 
him back. Then Lockhart leans, exhausted, against the side of the 
photo.

In the Lockhart photos, all of his likenesses are dressed in hairnets 
and rollers, which they had to get from somewhere.

In the Weasley photos and the Sirius Black photos and the Potter 
wedding photos, all the people do is wave and smile. Perhaps, this is 
due to the photographer being a professional. Perhaps, because 
newspapers get discarded and could possibly end up in Muggle hands, 
the photo subjects just sit still or barely move.

I still think that some photos, taken by wizards, with a bit 
different processing, have more potential. I am sticking with my 
Lockhart visits the Fat Lady until someone disproves it with canon.

Doreen, who would love to have a wizard photo of Alan Rickman, life-
size, on her wall. :)