Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 11, 2018, 11:29:38 pm
Anyway, this post here is about her answer to a fan on Instagram, who asked the following question:
"What should I learn in Photoshop first, in order to process like you"
Kristina's answer:
"Algebra, biology, physics, geometry, history, literature, in school"
Brilliant!
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on September 12, 2018, 12:14:27 am
Post by: langier on September 12, 2018, 12:28:06 am
A diverse and wide-ranging education contributes more to a good photo than most people realize. Learning everything there is in Photoshop does little than to allow the "expert" to polish a turd. In other words, knowing just the tools and software leads to technically perfect and sharp photos of atrocious and fuzzy concepts, contributing to the billions of mediocre and failed photographs uploaded to the cloud each day.
It's the picture that's got the soul, not the pixels!
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 12:58:38 am
The question was not: What should I learn in life with priority. And even then the given answer is not to the point.
Humility could be a good start in life.
A broad education is for sure an asset in life, I only wonder if the master photographers we know are all master degree scientists. I guess not.
I say more, the brain part you need to be an artist is the opposite than the one you need for mathematics
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 12, 2018, 01:43:55 am
Besides, Photoshop in itself is not art, but generally requires a lot of technical knowledge. Even today’s photography, cameras in particular, require it.
A lot of composition relies on geometry. Just ask HCB, for instance.
She also said “history and literature.” Someone here recently mentioned a link between poetry and photography.
All of that, general education and accumulated knowledge, from technical to poetic, even if buried in the subconscious, is what makes a person using the massively complex and powerful tool that Photoshop is produce a unique vision with it. Rather than just replicating someone else’s style by knowing which sliders to move first.
Post by: Farmer on September 12, 2018, 03:49:46 am
;-p
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 04:36:56 am
Ivo, you are, surprisingly, taking the answer too literally.
Besides, Photoshop in itself is not art, but generally requires a lot of technical knowledge. Even today’s photography, cameras in particular, require it.
A lot of composition relies on geometry. Just ask HCB, for instance.
She also said “history and literature.” Someone here recently mentioned a link between poetry and photography.
All of that, general education and accumulated knowledge, from technical to poetic, even if buried in the subconscious, is what makes a person using the massively complex and powerful tool that Photoshop is produce a unique vision with it. Rather than just replicating someone else’s style by knowing which sliders to move first.
All true, Slobodan. Only, the technical part of photography is not rocket science.
If someone ask what to learn first (in relation to photography) the given answer is not helpful.
There are a few more helpful answers possible, not?
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 04:41:07 am
No, no, Slobo. Just grab it and do for yourself - don't learn anything first!
;-p
There is a difference in telling somebody to learn about the subject or paternalistic telling someone he should go to college first. The latter is a bit misplaced and for me it feels like sending someone back to toddlerhood instead of talking to equal.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on September 12, 2018, 06:34:12 am
Post by: 32BT on September 12, 2018, 07:01:43 am
Never forget that a non destructive workflow is extremely tedious and is basically for people that are scared of commitment.
Exactly! In fact one could say the same of the entire RAW workflow.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on September 12, 2018, 07:07:06 am
Exactly! In fact one could say the same of the entire RAW workflow.
Yes, shoot jpg. Dispense with the entire mess
Post by: 32BT on September 12, 2018, 07:13:52 am
If someone ask what to learn first (in relation to photography) the given answer is not helpful.
Actually, when asking the wrong question (in relation to one's learning), this response is very appropriate because it's meant to trigger someone to use their brain.
Post by: Rob C on September 12, 2018, 07:15:47 am
Of course a reasonable education helps in everything in life, but that didn't appear to be on what the reply might have been expected to focus.
Rob
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 07:19:16 am
Yes, shoot jpg. Dispense with the entire mess
?? I don’t see how this match with the topic. ??
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 07:20:22 am
I'm with Ivo here: there may have been loss in translation or, rather, emphasis in translation, but I didn't read the question to be about image-catching in camera, but the after-work that makes it look good.
Of course a reasonable education helps in everything in life, but that didn't appear to be on what the reply might have been expected to focus.
Rob
Exactly my point.
A good English course could be helpful in my case, I admit.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 07:22:21 am
Obviously you need the saturation slider. Also hand fulls of highlight and shadow recovery. Clarity helps a lot I think. Don't forget to sharpen, the more the better, don't be scared. Never forget that a non destructive workflow is extremely tedious and is basically for people that are scared of commitment.
Well, explaining the better practices could be a start.
Post by: 32BT on September 12, 2018, 07:30:00 am
I'm with Ivo here: there may have been loss in translation or, rather, emphasis in translation, but I didn't read the question to be about image-catching in camera, but the after-work that makes it look good.
Of course a reasonable education helps in everything in life, but that didn't appear to be on what the reply might have been expected to focus.
Rob
I know your not much on music analogies, but it's a bit like asking Miles D what instrument you should learn to play first in order to play music like him.
Then he tells you that life is the most important thing to learn and your brain the most important instrument, and he tells you that in a way that will eventually make you realise that it was a stupid question to begin with and the answer was the appropriate answer.
Post by: 32BT on September 12, 2018, 07:35:10 am
Post by: Rob C on September 12, 2018, 07:48:40 am
There is massive peril in appearing to be too goddamn smart.
That said, the same art directors were perfectly capable of producing good designs and layouts that made both my snaps and their design look cool. Formal education has its value, without a doubt, only if because it can be a semi-passport to more highly-placed players in the advertising/industrial world, but it sure ain't paramount! Many of the same art directors had not even gone to art school, but had started professional life working within art departments.
It's my impression that an overemphasis on education could well be a fact that seeps out from the gallery/fine art world, with its interest in mentors, colleges and an entire rainbow of associated cultural bonuses that formal education within the establishment offers, as much as it does employment and status for those within that establishment. Turkeys, Christmas?
:-)
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 07:54:20 am
I know your not much on music analogies, but it's a bit like asking Miles D what instrument you should learn to play first in order to play music like him.
Then he tells you that life is the most important thing to learn and your brain the most important instrument, and he tells you that in a way that will eventually make you realise that it was a stupid question to begin with and the answer was the appropriate answer.
If he is an arrogant prick, yes.
Or in case he accept the question is raised by a starting musician he could play along or jam a few minutes.
It all start with the acceptance of an equal conversation partner.
Post by: Rob C on September 12, 2018, 08:05:08 am
I know your not much on music analogies, but it's a bit like asking Miles D what instrument you should learn to play first in order to play music like him.
Then he tells you that life is the most important thing to learn and your brain the most important instrument, and he tells you that in a way that will eventually make you realise that it was a stupid question to begin with and the answer was the appropriate answer.
Yes, Oscar, I agree with your analogy, but the thing is, I don't think the person asking the original question was asking the question that provoked the response. Bad connection.
We had a severe storm on Sunday night; Monday I had no Internet connection on the desktop computer, and the online tv service was off, too; my iPad, however, worked perfectly via the router. I spent yesterday afternoon getting into an alarming state of nervous tension as I tried to get two different people on the line provider's (Telefonica) telephone line to help me out. They both made me run through a series of reconnection procedures that I had already tried without their help. I gave up.
This morning, I called back again, and after hanging on for eleven minutes, I was connected with an older voice that made all the difference. I explained the events of the past afternoon, she ran me through the same routine, but this time, instead of pontificating, the lady actually listened to what I was describing, and I now await a call from the tecnicos to come fix or replace the router.
Attitude is vital, and all people connected with PR in any form should be taught that as first step to employment. Maybe the photographer was too up herself to appreciate that basic fact of life.
Post by: 32BT on September 12, 2018, 08:07:27 am
If he is an arrogant prick, yes.
Or in case he accept the question is raised by a starting musician he could play along or jam a few minutes.
It all start with the acceptance of an equal conversation partner.
Friendly is not necessarily the optimal answer. A horrible divorce for example will likely make for better closure. And yes, that is also appropriate for the example here: if you try to maintain equal level thereby reenforcing someone's incorrect approach, then you are likely not helping and in fact doing them a disservice. It's better to be a prick and making sure the person detaches from fanboyism and then find their own way.
You apparently had children who've been thru puberty, so i'm probably not telling you anything you didn't already know.
Post by: 32BT on September 12, 2018, 08:26:01 am
Yes, Oscar, I agree with your analogy, but the thing is, I don't think the person asking the original question was asking the question that the response provoked. Bad connection.
We had a severe storm on Sunday night; Monday I had no Internet connection on the desktop computer, and the online tv service was off, too; my iPad, however, worked perfectly via the router. I spent yesterday afternoon getting into an alarming state of nervous tension as I tried to get two different people on the line provider's (Telefonica) telephone line to help me out. They both made me run through a series of reconnection procedures that I had already tried without their help. I gave up.
This morning, I called back again, and after hanging on for eleven minutes, I was connected with an older voice that made all the difference. I explained the events of the past afternoon, she ran me through the same routine, but this time, instead of pontificating, the lady actually listened to what I was describing, and I now await a call from the tecnicos to come fix or replace the router.
Attitude is vital, and all people connected with PR in any form should be taught that as first step to employment. Maybe the photographer was too up herself to appreciate that basic fact of life.
Not the same thing, i think. You are asking for a fish and it is expected they feed you. You're not asking how to fish so you can feed yourself...
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 08:50:40 am
Friendly is not necessarily the optimal answer. A horrible divorce for example will likely make for better closure. And yes, that is also appropriate for the example here: if you try to maintain equal level thereby reenforcing someone's incorrect approach, then you are likely not helping and in fact doing them a disservice. It's better to be a prick and making sure the person detaches from fanboyism and then find their own way.
You apparently had children who've been thru puberty, so i'm probably not telling you anything you didn't already know.
Don’t mention the war. 🤫
Is it not awkward to take the standard approach somebody with a question is per definition in the wrong street?
To my experience it are the peoples without questions who are often in the wrong lane.
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 12, 2018, 09:09:28 am
I say more, the brain part you need to be an artist is the opposite than the one you need for mathematics
I protest this. My degrees are in mathematics, and it helps me greatly with my photography. FYI, I am an architectural photographer and geometry and huge part of my work.
Post by: RSL on September 12, 2018, 09:21:55 am
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on September 12, 2018, 09:24:38 am
I protest this. My degrees are in mathematics, and it helps me greatly with my photography. FYI, I am an architectural photographer and geometry and huge part of my work.+1.
I've never been a professional, but my day job was math and computer science for 35 years. That certainly helped many technical aspects of photography, but never got in the way of the "vision thing."
Post by: Rob C on September 12, 2018, 09:31:00 am
I protest this. My degrees are in mathematics, and it helps me greatly with my photography. FYI, I am an architectural photographer and geometry and huge part of my work.
C'mon, Joe: geometry as a mathematical concept and as a visual one are worlds apart in meaning, understanding and execution; one is about theorems etc. whereas the other has nothing to do with the mathematical interpretation but has everything to do with a sense of artistic balance. You can have the latter without owning the least idea of Pythagoras, trigonometry, algebra or any of the other branches of that particular intellectual tree.
Rob
Post by: Rob C on September 12, 2018, 09:38:01 am
+1.
I've never been a professional, but my day job was math and computer science for 35 years. That certainly helped many technical aspects of photography, but never got in the way of the "vision thing."
Exactly, Eric, and as you expressed, "never got in the way" which is tantamount to saying that having the geometry (in its maths incarnation) was something that posed a risk rather than contributed anything positive to art.
Which makes me wonder how that computes with you +1, for it seems to be diametrically opposed in spirit. (Don't you just love how maths can get into everything, bid or otherwise?)
Rob
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 12, 2018, 10:13:10 am
My answer to the OP, “selections, the curves tool and the histogram”
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 12, 2018, 10:33:30 am
C'mon, Joe: geometry as a mathematical concept and as a visual one are worlds apart in meaning, understanding and execution; one is about theorems etc. whereas the other has nothing to do with the mathematical interpretation but has everything to do with a sense of artistic balance. You can have the latter without owning the least idea of Pythagoras, trigonometry, algebra or any of the other branches of that particular intellectual tree.So knowing the Golden Ratio and how it is used in building design matters none, along with other dimensional relations? Being able to read and interoperate building plans, which are quite geometric, is not of great importance?
Rob
Post by: JNB_Rare on September 12, 2018, 10:36:29 am
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 12, 2018, 10:39:43 am
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 12, 2018, 10:41:02 am
... My answer to the OP, “selections, the curves tool and the histogram”
Another lost soul.
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 12, 2018, 11:07:05 am
Nonetheless this reminds me of the overly asked question of how our images are just so good, it must be the camera you use, right? I always find this an interesting statement, especially since it is said during a shoot with all the lighting gear out and being used, which is what really makes the image.
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 12, 2018, 11:41:39 am
Another lost soul.
;D 8) :'(
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 11:52:34 am
So knowing the Golden Ratio and how it is used in building design matters none, along with other dimensional relations? Being able to read and interoperate building plans, which are quite geometric, is not of great importance?
My commissioned work is real estate as well and understanding the architects artistic vision is key.
It’s the architects role to understand modulus and how to read and make building plans.
Knowledge of photoshop is maybe the second important tool in this discipline , second to properly operating TS glas work.
My technical background is more a burden than a benefit.
My main job is industrial project manager for multi disciplinary projects, my second job, Photography, provides me the balance I need not to go crazy of all this pragmatic stuff. If there was a firm relationship between photography and exact science, I would immediately stop photographing.
(Ok, maybe not...
)Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 11:57:35 am
I posted my last post at 2am this morning, only to wake up to another surprise in the thread: Rob and Ivo apparently have lost their sense of humor, in particular the absurd, paradoxical one ;)
Damn. Where are my pills.
Hahaha.
Ha well. I woke up this morning at 6am and while doing what a man had to do first, I checked Lula, and probably I’m not the most humoristique person on the world that early.
Lets check the bathroom floor to find back my sense of humor.
Hehe.
Post by: Rob C on September 12, 2018, 01:07:35 pm
So knowing the Golden Ratio and how it is used in building design matters none, along with other dimensional relations? Being able to read and interoperate building plans, which are quite geometric, is not of great importance?
To an architect, surveyor or builder, of immense importance. That you appear to have both maths and artistic eye is a happy coincidence for you.
To me, as a photographer making a picture, none.
I can read plans thanks to technical college and part of my apprenticeship in engineering, but as I'm trying to say, that's all alien to making a visual statement prompted by aesthetics that do not depend on any engineering skills at all. It is not a knocking of such skills but a measure of their redundancy in a photographer's general work. It's all a visual feeling that comes from one's own mind.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 12, 2018, 02:08:31 pm
... I'm trying to say, that's all alien to making a visual statement prompted by aesthetics that do not depend on any engineering skills at all. It is not a knocking of such skills but a measure of their redundancy in a photographer's general work. It's all a visual feeling that comes from one's own mind.
Absolutely disagree.
We are not talking, for example, about math formulas helpful to calculate the square footage of a home we are trying to buy or sell, or any other helpful math skills. We are talking about math that is elegance, that is poetry, that is creativity.
You do not believe math can be elegant and poetic? I participated in my youth in regional math competitions at the level that is not going to ask you what is the square root of 9, for instance, but were presenting math problems in such a way that required elegance and creativity (i.e., finding the quickest and simplest solution). Sometimes, the solutions are so elegant that it amounts to sheer poetry. Those who do or did programming (e.g., Russ) should concur about elegance, I hope.
Once you get a sense what that is (elegance) in school, it stays in your subconscious and surfaces with no particular effort when you start photographing.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 03:08:20 pm
Absolutely disagree.
We are not talking, for example, about math formulas helpful to calculate the square footage of a home we are trying to buy or sell, or any other helpful math skills. We are talking about math that is elegance, that is poetry, that is creativity.
You do not believe math can be elegant and poetic? I participated in my youth in regional math competitions at the level that is not going to ask you what is the square root of 9, for instance, but were presenting math problems in such a way that required elegance and creativity (i.e., finding the quickest and simplest solution). Sometimes, the solutions are so elegant that it amounts to sheer poetry. Those who do or did programming (e.g., Russ) should concur about elegance, I hope.
Once you get a sense what that is (elegance) in school, it stays in your subconscious and surfaces with no particular effort when you start photographing.
We are close to Kabbalah, I have the impression.
Years ago we installed a new generation of robots in a VW factory. One of our robot programmers got lyrical over the sensual movement he taught the robot.
He showed of to a German engineer who smiled and deleted the code and took over the teaching console. In a fraction of points he reprogrammed the robot and tack welded the chassis in 35 instead of 75 seconds.
Our engineer was lyrical about the sensuality of the movement, the German engineer was lyrical about the short ‘taktzeit’
The ‘strassefuhrer’ was in favor of the short routine, not the elegant one. In fact, he found the ‘elegant’ code bloated en not serving purpose.
Post by: Rob C on September 12, 2018, 03:50:45 pm
Absolutely disagree.
We are not talking, for example, about math formulas helpful to calculate the square footage of a home we are trying to buy or sell, or any other helpful math skills. We are talking about math that is elegance, that is poetry, that is creativity.
You do not believe math can be elegant and poetic? I participated in my youth in regional math competitions at the level that is not going to ask you what is the square root of 9, for instance, but were presenting math problems in such a way that required elegance and creativity (i.e., finding the quickest and simplest solution). Sometimes, the solutions are so elegant that it amounts to sheer poetry. Those who do or did programming (e.g., Russ) should concur about elegance, I hope.
Once you get a sense what that is (elegance) in school, it stays in your subconscious and surfaces with no particular effort when you start photographing.
Those are but red herrings or, worse, non sequiturs. I have no problem accepting that some minds find beauty in the sense of order or even, perhaps, of logic in maths; but photography is about visual beauty, divorced from maths. Were that not true, I would be incapable of making a reasonably good photograph for I not only dislike maths, fear involvement (just as with electronics) but hate having anything to do with it. There used to be a form of maths in the 50s called "identities" which may have some even more obscure nomenclature today, but briefly, and for example, it consisted of this kind of problem: express sine squared a in terms of... My wife loved that - she also galloped through the Glasgow Herald crossword in five minutes, whereas I couldn't cope with either. She never wrote an essay after leaving school; her grammar and spelling were perfect, but that's where her mind ended where language was concerned.
Equally, doesn't it occur to anyone that though architects are obliged to be happy with maths, that "beauty" certainly does not always translate into, or live beside, great design imagination and ability to express beauty in that dimension of beauty. Were it not so, why would crazy guys like Gaudi be famous? In a world of architectural mathematicians they would all be equally capable of expressing art and not only the science of construction. Maths is a fairly definite science, whereas art can be pretty much anything that looks good.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 12, 2018, 04:01:15 pm
... The ‘strassefuhrer’ was in favor of the short routine, not the elegant one. In fact, he found the ‘elegant’ code bloated en not serving purpose.
Then you misunderstood the term “elegant” the way I described it. Not “ballet elegant” but elegant in its simplicity and creative solution. Thus a code that is “bloated and not serving purpose” can never be described as elegant.
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 12, 2018, 04:07:51 pm
We are close to Kabbalah, I have the impression.
Years ago we installed a new generation of robots in a VW factory. One of our robot programmers got lyrical over the sensual movement he taught the robot.
He showed of to a German engineer who smiled and deleted the code and took over the teaching console. In a fraction of points he reprogrammed the robot and tack welded the chassis in 35 instead of 75 seconds.
Our engineer was lyrical about the sensuality of the movement, the German engineer was lyrical about the short ‘taktzeit’
The ‘strassefuhrer’ was in favor of the short routine, not the elegant one. In fact, he found the ‘elegant’ code bloated en not serving purpose.
This story shows your lack of any understanding of mathematics, not because you feel that the dancing robot was "elegant" but because you don't realize it was in fact not. Producing a solution that has erroneous and unneeded parts is not elegant, it's sloppy.
Elegant to a mathematician is finding the simplest solution that the greatest number of people could understand.
Case in point, I was once presented with a problem, prove or disprove: if you draw five points on a sphere, it is always possible to cut the sphere in half into two closed hemispheres such that at least 4 points are on the same half. This is true and we spent hours coming up with a proof that was at least a page long. Not that that was wrong, but our professor shared with us the next day a three sentence proof you could explain to a grade schooler. That's elegant.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 04:18:16 pm
Then you misunderstood the term “elegant” the way I described it. Not “ballet elegant” but elegant in its simplicity and creative solution. Thus a code that is “bloated and not serving purpose” can never be described as elegant.
I should have used brackets around the word elegant in my reply. My fault you didn’t catch the nuance in my reply.
That’s where the German engineers beauty comes into my story, Slobodan. I know what you mean.
The code of my collègue made the robot almost dancing. The German code was effective in his simplicity.
Now, that’s why I put the two together.
Elegance of a poem or music, dance, and elegance in math or coding are from another nature.
It’s like a romantic performance of the Matheus passion against a true to form performance. Make your choice.
So is photography.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 04:23:51 pm
This story shows your lack of any understanding of mathematics, not because you feel that the dancing robot was "elegant" but because you don't realize it was in fact not. Producing a solution that has erroneous and unneeded parts is not elegant, it's sloppy.
Elegant to a mathematician is finding the simplest solution that the greatest number of people could understand.
Case in point, I was once presented with a problem, prove or disprove: if you draw five points on a sphere, it is always possible to cut the sphere in half into two close hemispheres such that at least 4 points are on the same half. This is true and we spent hours coming up with a proof that was at least a page long. Not that that was wrong, but our professor shared with us the next day a three sentence proof you could explain to a grade schooler. That's elegant.
Again this typical underestimation.
See my explanation to Slobodan above.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 12, 2018, 04:24:53 pm
... photography is about visual beauty, divorced from maths. Were that not true, I would be incapable of making a reasonably good photograph for I not only dislike maths, fear involvement (just as with electronics) but hate having anything to do with it...
Rob, when you shoot boobs, the only math you need is the ability to count to two ;)
Post by: Ivophoto on September 12, 2018, 04:27:14 pm
Rob, when you shoot boobs, the only math you need is the ability to count to two ;)
On some photo site you can see the number of views of a posted picture. The boob pictures are always in thousands of clicks. The mathematical beauties not above 5.
Post by: petermfiore on September 12, 2018, 05:30:10 pm
Rob, when you shoot boobs, the only math you need is the ability to count to two ;)
If one needs to do a count, obviously too much time was spent in school.
Peter
Post by: Rob C on September 12, 2018, 05:48:57 pm
Rob, when you shoot boobs, the only math you need is the ability to count to two ;)
Slobodan, I can't remember that far back.
However, it underlines the simplicity of art: no need for maths at all; just for appreciation of the finer, well, points in life and God's design genius. Two hands, two delightful destinations: mathematics and art, the noble exception of art and maths as bedmates.
In fact, when you consider the entire decimal system you realise again that God got it right: just enough numbers to be accurate counting on the fingers! See? Duodecimals were an abortion brought about by the stupidity of the foot and the inch, the penny and the shilling. It probably explains why the more aristocratic, Brexiteering politicians have this regressive, atavistic urge to bring back the old world: somehow, the old currency made the Brits a little more advanced... as if. You just need to catch the accents to get the photo. John Bull must be back at home enjoying his whisky and soda. Quite why the guy down the boozer also bought into their crap is anybody's guess.
:-)
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 12, 2018, 06:09:40 pm
Slobodan, I can't remember that far back.
However, it underlines the simplicity of art: no need for maths at all; just for appreciation of the finer, well, points in life and God's design genius. Two hands, two delightful destinations: mathematics and art, the noble exception of art and maths as bedmates.
In fact, when you consider the entire decimal system you realise again that God got it right: just enough numbers to be accurate counting on the fingers! See? Duodecimals were an abortion brought about by the stupidity of the foot and the inch, the penny and the shilling. It probably explains why the more aristocratic, Brexiteering politicians have this regressive, atavistic urge to bring back the old world: somehow, the old currency made the Brits a little more advanced... as if. You just need to catch the accents to get the photo. John Bull must be back at home enjoying his whisky and soda. Quite why the guy down the boozer also bought into their crap is anybody's guess.
:-)
Well, if we really wanted to get technical I could bring up the fact that the first number system was base 60, meaning there were 60 different symbols. And yes, you can count 60 using your fingers, just in a different way then what we are use to today.
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on September 13, 2018, 12:39:59 am
Once you get a sense what that is (elegance) in school, it stays in your subconscious and surfaces with no particular effort when you start photographing.That says it all, IMHO.
And if we have to explain "elegance," then, as the Sage said, "You ain't never goin' to understand it."
Post by: Ivophoto on September 13, 2018, 12:50:59 am
If one needs to do a count, obviously too much time was spent in school.
Peter
I never got laid by showing of my coding or math skills.
(Hm, I lie, but it’s a case of denial.)
By showing my camera neither,.....
Hm.
Post by: JNB_Rare on September 13, 2018, 09:23:37 am
Rob, when you shoot boobs, the only math you need is the ability to count to two ;)
For maximum boob exposure, work in binary. You may count two, but see 10.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 13, 2018, 09:27:57 am
For maximum boob exposure, work in binary. You may count two, but see 10.
😂
Post by: KLaban on September 13, 2018, 09:48:16 am
...whereas art can be pretty much anything that looks good.
Thankfully - for the Sunday painter apart - art can be free of such constraints.