15Bit wrote:
I'm not sure that is true. I believe he did have to improve his mathematics to prove his theories, but that is far from describing him as "subpar".
<shrug>
"First and foremost, let us dispel the most popular, most beloved rumor about Einstein of all. He did not fail math. He got top grades in math and science all of his life. He also didn't fail out of school -- though he did abruptly leave his secondary school when his family moved to Italy during his final year. But he did earn his diploma elsewhere and then went on to and graduated from college
(albeit with only fair grades, and he was known to skip a lot of classes. . . )
To be honest, however, for a high-end theoretical physicist, Einstein's math was subpar. His earlier papers -- while elegant, brief, and brilliant -- often contain simple errors. However, it must be remembered the Einstein was not balancing a checkbook, he was balancing the forces of gravity and the speed of light. The level of mathematics he was doing is far beyond two-plus-two. And so it's more correct to say that Einstein wasn't a mathematician -- and that he needed their help quite often to make sure his theories did pan out in the end." (http://www.einsteinatoz.com/faq.shtml)
In any case, it seems to me that describing geniuses without good craftsmanship as being capable of nothing but "psychotic rambling" is quite a bit over the top :-)
chez wrote:
My thoughts exactly. This topic arises every so often and gets debated endlessly. What is the point? Just go out and take photos with whatever gear makes you happy. Don't worry so much what the other guy is shooting and the gear he is shooting with. Does it really matter if he has better gear than you?
To which one might reply (after agreeing that what the other guy is shooting is pretty darn insignificant in most cases), "Then why keep coming back here to read it and then post in the thread?" ;-)
Dan,
who worries little about what the other guy shoots, who is generally happy, and who makes a a lot of photographs and who believes that thinking and photographing are not necessarily mutually exclusive activities. ;-)
KaaX wrote:
Which particular craft was the prototypical genius, Einstein, good at? He was well know to be a subpar mathematician...
People tend to think of the word 'craft' as something done with ones hands..... originally the meaning was more akin to 'knowledge' or ''expertise'.
There was also a moral connotation. A workman would do what the job required according to the price being paid .....a craftsman would produce his best possible work at all times irrespective of the payment for his labour...... and be capable of superb workmanship.
gdanmitchell wrote:
who believes that thinking and photographing are not necessarily mutually exclusive activities. ;-)
+1
However, or additionally, we often wish to practice our craft so that it becomes second-nature, thus freeing the mind to think about photography at more elevated levels.
gdanmitchell wrote:
To which one might reply (after agreeing that what the other guy is shooting is pretty darn insignificant in most cases), "Then why keep coming back here to read it and then post in the thread?" ;-)
Dan,
who worries little about what the other guy shoots, who is generally happy, and who makes a a lot of photographs and who believes that thinking and photographing are not necessarily mutually exclusive activities. ;-)
Dan, just love to have a chuckle once in a while to see some of you debate what a genius and a craftsman are and who qualifies and who does not. Yeh...this has a lot to do with photo gear.
However, or additionally, we often wish to practice our craft so that it becomes second-nature, thus freeing the mind to think about photography at more elevated levels.
Boy, if I could have a nickel for every time I have already made exactly that point... in this very thread, even.
I often wonder what it is about forum "dialog" that leads people to try to see everything as a binary? It is either this thing or that thing - but never some sort of balance of the two. It must be that "gear is important and talent is meaningless" (at least among some percentage of posters) or that "talent is the only thing and gear is meaningless."
The real world is more complex and nuanced. For example, dedicating a lot of time to thinking about and practicing photography before going into the field (and then repeating often after returning and considering what worked and how well) seems to me to be a pretty darn important part of the process that might get one to the point at which "it becomes second-nature, thus freeing the mind to think about photography at more elevated levels."
Photography (and just about every other thing of value) is not just a simple logical construct. There are logical aspects to it, but there are also complex, individual, mystical aspects to it as well. There is plenty of evidence in the work of photographers that the balance is essential.
But let me go ahead and beat some other poster to the punch and acknowledge that he/she will want to point out that this is a "technical discussion" within which such "elevated" notions have no place.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I often wonder what it is about forum "dialog" that leads people to try to see everything as a binary? It is either this thing or that thing - but never some sort of balance of the two. It must be that "gear is important and talent is meaningless" (at least among some percentage of posters) or that "talent is the only thing and gear is meaningless."
The real world is more complex and nuanced. For example, dedicating a lot of time to thinking about and practicing photography before going into the field (and then repeating often after returning and considering what worked and how well) seems to me to be a pretty darn important part of the process that might get one to the point at which "it becomes second-nature, thus freeing the mind to think about photography at more elevated levels." ...Show more →
Might i suggest that today's "digital age" gear is not unlike "film" back in the day. You start out shooting color negative, dabble in black and white (perhaps get seriously hooked, planted in the darkroom) then discover slide film; the positive images; and all the variations. Discover the fine, ultra fine grain of low ASA film and your hooked again.
Digital is just the new film. It's just that, right now in it's infancy, a new body must be delivered with each advancement in sensor technology...it's a good money game; for now, for profit. And for too long we've been stuck in 35mm body mode and sensor size (modular plez)
My 1st computer was an Apple II+, back in 78 it cost $5k+, had 48K of RAM...now look at what we complain about, a $500 laptop (rocket ship) that fits in a backpack, a $500 phone in our shirt/jacket pocket...dick tracy here we come!
Better, faster, more...yes it helps...but in the end gear is a tool, it can enhance final output; the deliverable, but alone it's just a doorstop. Talent on the other hand is quite less definable, natural mostly (I think), learned to a point...
Each of us finds an art for our talent, then prefects that art over time, using whatever tool we need to discover our ever evolving potential.
