RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
I dig the explanation ... I always appreciate when someone does something with intent that actually has conceptual intent tied to the image.
As one who frequently does things that are too sublime for others to make the connection, I can appreciate it how the meaning for you has merit to the piece. Even as a math geek, I didn't make the connection on that one. Kudo's at the depth of thought in connecting the two ... although, it likely will be lost on most nearly everyone else (sans explanation) ... and yet, I appreciate it too (once explained).
Will have to digest it a bit, now that you've presented that perspective ... pretty deep thinking ... I'm diggin' the thought/concept, but still a bit "hmmmm" @ how to render.
My question would then become ... "Okay, so we are NOT starting the sequence @ 0 ... but, why start it at 44?"
If we are on a system of 2^8=256, then starting @ 2^1=2 would be the first step in the sequence. Starting @ 44 is starting more like 2^5=32.
In that regard, I think you can start with present your tonal values differently and still be true to the Fibonoacci.
In a similar, yet diff approach, you might look at the Zone system as Karen has mentioned, also not starting @ "0".
While I recognize the mathematical variance between Fibonacci, stops and Zones, I think you've got more latitude in creativity to still be aligned philosophically than you've exercised in your concept shot. If you really compare the summation of Fibonnacci to the exponential they of course won't mimick each other, but they may correlate better than one might otherwise initially think.
|