moving pictures ... paintings vs. photos

[Indigo]

No: HPFGUIDX 19664

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Doreen Rich" <nera at r...> wrote:
> --- 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 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.
> 
Actually,  Harry's photo, when he was roped into a photo op with 
Gilderoy, did everything it could to not be standing in the photo.  
Harry looked at the photo sometime later and saw he was turned around 
and squeezed into one corner trying not to be seen, and he commended 
his photographic image for doing so.

Indigo
[who'd prefer a lifesize moving Sirius photo...yum!]