Re: Photographers-Do you think outside the box?
- From: Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:33:45 +0200
achilleaslazarides@xxxxxxxxxxx <achilleaslazarides@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Blair <blairhwrd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The creative possibilities of photography are limitless. But rarely do
any of us really exploit those possibilities to the fullest.
Since you claim the possibilities to be "limitless", it is
mathematically inpossible to exploit them to the fullest. If
anyone could do that, the possibilities would STOP there, and
thus not be limitless, but have a limit.
Ah, but he did not specify it is to be done in a finite amount of time.
Even the universe has only a finite amount of time. Unless the
photographer is a deity, in which case that may or may not be
a problem.
It is also possible that we exploit them up to a fraction of the total,
Any fraction greater than zero of the infinite is still infinite.
Excepting an infinite part of the infinite, in which case it
depends on the exact infinites.
and that this fraction can be made to approach unity without ever
reaching it in a finite amount of time (ie successive values form a
Cauchy sequence).
The questioon is, then: can photographic ability and knowledge
approach it enough in less than 80 years for above average humans?
And can the Cauchy sequence describe the increase of photographic
ability and knowledge closely enough to be valid as a model?
See, maybe he makes sense!
| With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
| necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going
| to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
| overhead.
(RFC 1925)
That's because most of us take the easy road, the path of least
resistance.
I thank you not to talk for me. I have reasons to believe
others may object as well.
Nonsense. We all do.
So why don't I use the green square of all-automatics, but
something else, something more complicated?
In fact, everything does, or at least, everything
happens so as to minimise an approriate action:
But our friend rails against a _not_ appropriate action,
which _he_ claims comes from taking "the easy road, the path of
least resistance."
So this cannot be what he means.
In fact, it's usually possible to reformulate anything into such a
form, ie into a form like: "Find the behaviour that minimises the
following functional"; this functional is called an action, thus the
path of least action (which is close enough to path of least
resistance).
Again, this is _maybe_ the evolution of most actions, but it
_is_ an evolution. Not every action starts out that way, on
the contrary, you learn as you go along.
Babies, for example, are not very aware that walking is more
effective than crawling, and even if they are, learning to
walk is much harder than continuing to crawl. But babies do
learn walking, usually the hard way, falling and trying again
and hurting themselves, too. Not exactly what you claim:
you minimized too much, it is no longer similar enough for the
functional in question.
Again, he's making sense!
Nope. What you say and what our friend says is completely
orthogonal.
But I think I have demonstrated that the original spammer.. er, poster
does have some valid points. Or perhaps not. Hmmm......
He has a grasp of rethoric, trying to insinuate himself into
"our" group, and calling us lazy, just to get a reaction.
-Wolfgang
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Photographers-Do you think outside the box?
- From: Stacey
- Re: Photographers-Do you think outside the box?
- Prev by Date: Re: Another mag describes 30Ds pictures as less than clear
- Next by Date: Re: D50 File Numbering
- Previous by thread: Re: Photographers-Do you think outside the box?
- Next by thread: Re: Photographers-Do you think outside the box?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
