My pareidolia knows no bounds.

One interesting idea that pareidolia has brought to the discussion, is the notion of "corresponding features". Fred brought this up a number of times, as a way to describe the "elaborateness" of the image in question. As far as I know, Fred has the "World Title for Most Features in a Pareidolic Image" with "Einstein" (I think it's 36 or 37 or something like that).

At first I considered whether or not this might be a way to help in the secondary artificiality question, but later concluded that there was something missing with counting ("Morty The Snowman" showed that). But the idea does have merit.

I'm not exactly sure of the rules, but a cursory count of "Mephistopheles" gives me roughly 13-14. This might be an interestng way for viewers to separate the "wheat from the chaff" when trying to sort through the thousands of images we're presented with. At least in science circles. If we're talking about art, well then I don't think it applies.

By the way, has it ever occured to anyone that <b><i>pareidolia IS art</i></b>?

rd

rderosa has asked me to clarify my counting features method of enumerating the degree of detail found in pareidolia. There is some degree of art in the process, as in any process. i imagine corroboration by anotrher person or persons would make any count more definative. Much detail that shows up in an original can't be seen by others on the web. Much fine detail especially, gets lost with digitalization and the web.
Generally, if a feature can be named or described it counts as a countable feature. Some features must be described because there is no name (such as the area between the upper lip and the nose, unless there is a moustache there). Some photos such as "Lila" posted previously here and on www.yarddog.com/catalog.php?category=50
have multiple figures in them. i can count them and others may say i don't see anything. This is where the "art of counting and communicating" enters. On the Lila photo for example, aside from the main central face everyone appears to readily see, i see a profile on the lower left (from viewer's aspect). i would count the 1. eye. 2. nose. 3. chin. 4. upper lip. 5. mouth opening 6. chin. 7. cheek. 8. hair. 9. feathered headress bonnet.(i could count 5 feathers but i like to not stetch the count). i count this number as i feel any one can readily see them and count them too. i also see a profile figure on the lower right although blurry and artistic i could count 1. babooshka. 2. hair. 3. eye. 4. mouth. scarf. 4. body.
On the main "Lila" face for example if one counts the left sclera and left pupil and left upper lid and lower lid ONE CAN NOT ALSO COUNT THE WHOLE EYE. EITHER COUNT THE PARTS OR THE WHOLE.
The best example of the counting method is for "Einstein" (cropped cental image) - come to think of it thanks for the question Rich, i'll count the features i can find in the uncropped version (not posted on the web) and boost the recorded number of countable features found in a pareidolic image. i may also do this with some multiple figured images i have and see if i can come up with a new record.
Although previously posted i'll post it again because i feel it best shows the counting method. "Einstein" detail can also be seen on the site above. Any digital anomalies should never be counted or dust spots when printing from negatives.
"Eintein" detail 1.Hair 2.Forehead 3.Right eyebrow 4.Left eyebrow 5.Area under right eyebrow but above eyelid. 6. Area under left eyebrow but above lid. 7.Upper right lid. 8.Upper left lid. 9.Right eye lashes(upper). 10 Orbital bone (pronounced) left eye. 11 Right sclera (white of eye). 12. Left sclera. 13. Right iris. 14. Left iris. 15.Right pupil. 16.Reflection in center of pupil (right eye). 17.caruncle (right eye) proximal bump lay people often erroneously call tear duct. 18. right eye lashes (lower). 19. right lower eyelid. 20. shading upper right eyelid. 21. shading upper left eyelid. 22.lower left eyelid. 23. nose. 24. right cheek. 25.left cheek. 26. Prominent left orbital bone. 27. skin area between nose and upper lip. 28. upper lip. 29.mouth opening. 30.lower lip. 31.chin. 32.neck. 33.adams apple. 34.left shoulder. 35. right shoulder. 36. philtrum

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Generally, if a feature can be named or described it counts as a countable feature. Some features must be described because there is no name (such as the area between the upper lip and the nose, unless there is a moustache there).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, thanks Fred. I was curious about a couple of things, like how you handled other secondary faces or features in the field of view, and whether or not you were using things like "neck-line" or "nose-line" or "head" to depict things that you can't really see much of anything other than the outline. It seems like you're leaving the door open to this, but you didn't use it yourself in the examples you gave me.

As far as the secondary features and faces go, you seem to be saying they should be counted too, but I'm not so sure about that.

If you were to go back to the original photo of the 30 by 40 board that has Einstein on it, you may be able to get a count much higher. That sort of complicates things, because where do we draw the line on the MOC Gallery images? On the whole swath? Or only on the face in question? There has to be some "size" component. Or some kind of standardizing aspect.

rd

rd- i try to keep the number count to a minimum and something others couldn't argue with. As i said even counting the features is an art. i was looking at a face 3/4 profile (unpublished) and there is an eye gouge space on the margin of the face. It could be counted as an "infered" eye but i wouldn't count it as it is arguable. i was showing some digital copies in the farmers market and a guy who seemed pretty drunk stared and stared and finally said "I don't see a damned thing." So i guess the only count that means anything is one you can find at least one other person to agree with it.
If one has a large frame or swath i would count all the features in it as meaningful. On my photos i include nobn-anatomical features like the shadow next to "Lila's" nose and the reflection in the center of "Einstein's" pupil as this is part of the pareidolia, as would be a greasy looking reflection off an images forehead.
For example on your "Mephestopheles" above i would count 1. mouth (even though two lips are obviously infered.) If mouth was obviously open with space between lips, i would call it 2 lips and one mouth opening. I'd count the 2.nostril along with the 3.nose as two features. i'd say count the 4.white of the eye (even though some might argue). i'd say 5.hair + 6.a pointy hat. 7.forehead, 8.beard, 9.chin, 10. eyebrow,11 neck, 12. upper eyelid, 13. iris of eye. 14. area above mouth and below nose. If you point out more features and get others to agree the count increases. i think you counted 20.
i would not call Leonardo face soup with 20 smiley face looking 4 features adding together to have 80 features as detailed as one "Einstein" with 36- but this is "aesthetics," and "art" entering the picture; so in that respect i see what you are saying about counting secondary image features.
To me the whole thing is mostly about "art," "mysticism," "magic," the "paranormal," the "phenomenological," the "ineffable," and the ever present question of "Did 3 million year old Martians shoot these images to me in some quantum entanglement on M-strings, through interstellar space or on the wings of a mushroom spore."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />"I don't see a damned thing." So i guess the only count that means anything is one you can find at least one other person to agree with it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, there's always going to be that aspect of it, but putting that aside, I think your method is sound.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><br />If one has a large frame or swath i would count all the features in it as meaningful.-pareidoliac<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know, some of these swaths are as big as Long Island. Seems to me like it should be narrowed down to the scene in question.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><br />For example on your "Mephestopheles" above i would count 1. mouth (even though two lips are obviously infered.) If mouth was obviously open with space between lips, i would call it 2 lips and one mouth opening. I'd count the 2.nostril along with the 3.nose as two features. i'd say count the 4.white of the eye (even though some might argue). i'd say 5.hair + 6.a pointy hat. 7.forehead, 8.beard, 9.chin, 10. eyebrow,11 neck, 12. upper eyelid, 13. iris of eye. 14. area above mouth and below nose. If you point out more features and get others to agree the count increases. i think you counted 20. --pareidoliac<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I had estimated at "roughly 13 or 14" (see above) so we're pretty close. But I also had "horns" and "ear" but didn't have "white of eye" and "iris of eye" and "upper eyelid". I just had "eye" for those three. So the total is either 16 if we count all mentioned, or 14 if we just use "eye". Either way, it's roughly what I thought.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><br />i would not call Leonardo face soup with 20 smiley face looking 4 features adding together to have 80 features --pareidoliac<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. This type of counting would make it unweildy, that's why I'm thinking the count has to be relative to the main face somehow, or size-based. In "Lila" we could say that the other small faces are all part of the "capture", so it sort of makes sense, but if we start counting all the smiley faces in a Long Island sized swath it would get up into the thousands![]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><br />To me the whole thing is mostly about "art," "mysticism," "magic," the "paranormal," the "phenomenological," the "ineffable," and the ever present question of "Did 3 million year old Martians shoot these images to me in some quantum entanglement on M-strings, through interstellar space or on the wings of a mushroom spore."--pareidoliac
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Exactly.

rd

rd- The "ear," would be a stretch for me as, i just see a huge blue area where one would expect to find an ear. i will credit "old Meph" with a goiter though, maybe even some much needed iodine in his hidden stash. ( Something like "hidden quantum variables.)Instead of the previously seen black line down-turned mouth, i could see it as a lower placed open mouth, in which case i'd give you a couple of lips and two teeth, and throw in a mustache for what i was seeing as a down-turned mouth. Too bad one can't count scars as he seems to have one above his eye. Two horns- cool.