• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Random thoughts on Grandchildren with Cameras and do Psychologists know a damn thing?

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Agreed. Predictions of the future are generally wrought with uncertainties.

However, given certain assumptions, things become comparatively less difficult.

Assumption:

The human mind shall be free to think and act independently and be free to soar in any direction unfettered in the future..

Given this assumption I can predict with certainty that ( in the arts, including visual arts )

" There is no such thing as a ' Complete ' theory of design, composition or framing. There will never be."

This what I stated a few posts back.

You might be surprised how much we can predict, even today, about the future, in some of the fields I have some knowledge of, with a very high degree of certainty. In the future, who knows? It is uncertain!!

p.s. Remember Doris Day croning?
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Agreed. Predictions of the future are generally wrought with uncertainties.

However, given certain assumptions, things become comparatively less difficult.

Assumption:

The human mind shall be free to think and act independently and be free to soar in any direction unfettered in the future..

Given this assumption I can predict with certainty that ( in the arts, including visual arts )

" There is no such thing as a ' Complete ' theory of design, composition or framing. There will never be."

This what I stated a few posts back.

We know since the times of Immanuel Kant that the human mind is fraught with internal limitations.

You might be surprised how much we can predict, even today, about the future, in some of the fields I have some knowledge of, with a very high degree of certainty.

I am sure we can predict many things. The real difficulty is when the prediction is confronted with reality, but that can only happen further on.

p.s. Remember Doris Day croning?

No, I don't. I look her name up and found out that she was an actress turn animal rights activist. In my culture, that role is taken by Brigitte Bardot.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
We know since the times of Immanuel Kant that the human mind is fraught with internal limitations.



I am sure we can predict many things. The real difficulty is when the prediction is confronted with reality, but that can only happen further on.



No, I don't. I look her name up and found out that she was an actress turn animal rights activist. In my culture, that role is taken by Brigitte Bardot.

Mr. Kant? Man knew what Mr. Kant verbosely professed much earlier than him. That the human mind is fraught with internal limitations. Tell me something new. The Neanderthals knew that too.

But the important point is it did not stop us inventing the wheel, the stone tools, drawing pictures on the walls, constructing the pyramids, inventing the written and spoken words, sending a man to the moon, composing music in different cultures, painting, developing vaccinations, antibiotics, the af camera and producing and recording famous images and events and so on and so forth.

Man produced thinkers in sociology, mathematics, history, the sciences.

We have invented ships, cars, and planes. None of them are mean feats. And mr. Kant and his philosophical ramblings are the product of man's mind.


So what point are you trying to make exactly?

Here is the mother of all predictions..certain. No reality to confront for ( and if ) those around..this planet known as earth shall cease to exist. Whoosh. Boom. Kaput.

How do we know this..through the ingenuity of the human mind.

You missed out mentioning that Bridget is a racist of the worse kind. She loves animals though, just not certain human beings.

Doris Day, on the other hand was no such thing.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Fahim,

Who? Doris Day?

You must have been too young Doug. :)

No, I know the work of the adorable Miss Kappelhoff very well. She was by the way born in Cincinnati, Ohio, comme moi, but about 10 years earlier (I say "about" as there is some uncertainty about her actual birth date).

What I don't understand is "Doris Day croning". Do you mean her becoming a "crone"? She is actually way cute today, even at the age of approximately 93.

Best regards,

Doug
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Hello Doug.

Apologies, I misspelt..should have been ' crooning '; though that is generally used for male singers.

Que Sera Sera..whatever will be will be..

I fell in love with her when I was in shorts..and never got out of it.

Best.

Sacrilege to compare her with Bardot. Sacre blue..or equivalent!,

Hi, Fahim,



No, I know the work of the adorable Miss Kappelhoff very well. She was by the way born in Cincinnati, Ohio, comme moi, but about 10 years earlier (I say "about" as there is some uncertainty about her actual birth date).

What I don't understand is "Doris Day croning". Do you mean her becoming a "crone"? She is actually way cute today, even at the age of approximately 93.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Fahim,

Hello Doug.

Apologies, I misspelt..should have been ' crooning '; though that is generally used for male singers.

Ah, of course.

Que Sera Sera..whatever will be will be..

Indeed, and a fabulous movie, as well.

I fell in love with her when I was in shorts..

Perhaps even more when she was as well!

. . .and never got out of it.

I understand.

She and Janet Leigh always stirred my juices the best.

Sacrilege to compare her with Bardot. Sacre blue..or equivalent!,

Indeed!

Best regards,

Doug
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
4 year old children are fascinating. When my children were around that age, I realised that 4-5 years is a precious moment: the child can communicate well, but the seeing process is not complete yet. If you can, try to lend one of your cameras to that child and ask her to take pictures of what she sees. Don't fear for the camera, just use the neck strap in case it falls out of her hands.

As to the "message" thing, I was expecting better from you. After all, you have written an essay on "Learning to see", so I expect you to build upon that.

I already said so before it: in a really good picture, the "message" cannot be expressed with words. If we could express the message with words, what would be the use for an image? Words are simple, efficient and can be duplicated easily. But there are messages which cannot be put into words. I am looking for that.

Your grand daughter can probably produce these easily, because at 4 she is not limited by words yet. Please try to lend her a camera.

'Learning to See' is one side of the story. There are many facets to photography. Each finds there own.
I'm still going on a new version.
The 4 year old is about to arrive as I type. I have an hour with her before I need therapy.
She's a persistent teacher.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Tom, are you still in the early stages of evolution or the later stages of devolution?

p.s.

Tom I would not be too surprised if you did not know the medical difference between psychosis and neurosis.

I am also sure, reading from your posts, you must have been under constant medical supervision.

The doctors have been at it a long time...how old did you say you are? With, apparently, no successful results.
Time to seek out better medical help.

I would recommend that the time is now for you to visit the States ( short for USA ). No better place for the most advanced medicine that can be found.

From the East Coast, to the West. There is no shortage of super medical help available. Even Cleveland OH would provide the best care available, if you wish to sightsee in OH.

Sincerely Tom, you need serious medical help. Maybe Asher could set you up at Stanford, CA. That is California, knowledge of which might have escaped you.

Crazy as a cut snake, Fahim. .
I'm not going anywhere near those USA (States) doctors. From what I've seen on TV in the mid-dramas, they're sicker than I am. The patients are always dying and the doctors are either psychopaths or drug addicts.
I have hard you have an abundance of good surgeons in Saudi. I might drop over for some therapy and shock treatment.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Could we return to composition, esthetics and the like that make for better pictures? Otherwise this is just "in group" chatter which could be better in separate threads in Layback Cafe on "Grandchildren with cameras" or "travel plans" etc, but we need to keep fairly much on topic her, apart from humor and tales that don't get us lost completely!

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
OPF appears simply to be a forum for waffle. Words..pages of them.

This was where the rubber would meet the road...

The good doctor, engineer, resident philosopher and our very own resident teacher..went awol.

What could one possibly learn from these people...who can drop names in an instant of painters, philosophers, talk about design, the subliminal meanings behind the works of art and the mathematics of the universe..

Show me said one. I did.

Show me I said. Teach me, I said.

I was met with silence!
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
OPF appears simply to be a forum for waffle. Words..pages of them.

This was where the rubber would meet the road...

The good doctor, engineer, resident philosopher and our very own resident teacher..went awol.

What could one possibly learn from these people...who can drop names in an instant of painters, philosophers, talk about design, the subliminal meanings behind the works of art and the mathematics of the universe..

Show me said one. I did.

Show me I said. Teach me, I said.

I was met with silence!

Nothing to teach you, Fahim. You know it all already. Us ignorant sods are still struggling with the questions.
We're just pissing into the wind here. That's the sound of silence.
I'm going back to my 4 year old. At least if she plays in the sand she tries to keep it out of her ears so she can hear what's going on.
Smart girl. And she's a 'real' australian.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
The difference between "wise guy" and "wise guy" is not even one letter.

Thus have I spoken.

Best regards,

Doug
Just an old telephone engineer
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Enough of "wise guys"!

I want to know what are the consequences of handing a 4 year old a camera? Any pictures?

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
OPF appears simply to be a forum for waffle. Words..pages of them.

This was where the rubber would meet the road...

The good doctor, engineer, resident philosopher and our very own resident teacher..went awol.

What could one possibly learn from these people...who can drop names in an instant of painters, philosophers, talk about design, the subliminal meanings behind the works of art and the mathematics of the universe..

Show me said one. I did.

Show me I said. Teach me, I said.

I was met with silence!

Awol = "Absent Without Official Leave". Thank you for the suggestion Fahim.

I came to this forum about 5 years ago with the idea to discuss pictures. I remember that, at the time, I quickly realised that you did not want any comment on your pictures which was not unqualified praise. I obliged and have not commented your pictures since that time.

Some time later, you posted your views about religion and the history of civilisations. I must have expressed incomprehension, maybe surprise at the time. I also realised that my views were not welcome, this time maybe not quickly enough, but in the end I also obliged.

Again later on, you posted your views about lenses and cameras from Leica. There again, dissenting opinions are not welcome and I will be pleased to oblige in the future.

This week, there was a discussion about composition in another thread. I feel terribly sorry, but I had no way to know before you stepped in that this was another of the subjects were you do no want a dissenting opinion. Be assured that the subject of composition is all yours now.

There are probably other subjects on which I will have to refrain to comment. Please accept my apologies in advance, but I have no way to predict what these subjects will be, so I may still participate in a thread or two if I feel that I can contribute something useful for other members. But I'll quickly move out and leave the thread to you alone once you'll step in, starting with the present thread. It will be very simple and painless, you'll just need to post something and I will be gone. No drama, no conflict, nothing. The other participants will not even notice a thing. In the old Usenet news readers, we used to have a function to do just that: simply drop any thread where a particular user was active and it worked very well.

I don't need drama and conflict in my life. I don't need to speak where I am not wanted. So I'll be absent. Please consider this message as my official notice of leave, since apparently we need one.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Neither do I need drama or conflict in my life Jerome.

I do not understand what and why you have wrote what you did in your last post above.

All I said was, I would like others to illustrate their approach to photographic composition with images
they had taken to emphasize the compositional methodology they had used in that particular image.

And I also followed this up with a post that while a few people, including myself, engage in discussions about there being photographic ( and often other ) theories/principles/rules or not, I have justifiably posted that I seem to be the sole poster to illustrate a principle/hypothesis/observation of photographic composition that I had used, and for what purpose.

No one else had, till the time of my illustrated post. So I justifiably wrote that OPF discussions ( the current one specifically addressing photographic compositions ) consist mostly of verbal discussions.
Nothing to illustrate a participant's own effort illustrating some facet of compositional relevance.

How could I, or anyone else, learn any new techniques or apply a different concept if all there is words...and words...in what is essentially a visual activity.

I honestly don't know where I have mis-stated the facts as they stood at the time I made me post.

I still maintain that visuals are way way more effective to make people appreciate some concept in photographic composition. And that I am still the sole contributor with photographs to illustrate whatI did in composition and why. That assertion stands valid up until this post of mine.
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Psycholgical Lines

This image illustrates the use of psychological lines or invisible lines, implied lines, etc, among other names

i-SXxkRDr-L.jpg
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Let's cool things, we are, perhaps overreacting. This is like one fellow slamming on his breaks and the poor folks behind are left crashing and then blaming each other, while the schmock 10 mile away by now, is chuckling his head off!

Asher
 

Andy brown

Well-known member
Oh dear!
It's official, this place has become a cranky old bastard's club (which is fine, I'm a cranky ole bastard, I fit right in).

I'm chuckling here. A couple of weeks ago, Tom Dinning had his sorry arse kicked for being a pratt, a dick, a bit of a wally. And rightfully so.
All water off a duck's back to him of course.

I do believe Fahim has just been 'tuned in' also.

Same rules apply...

Or do they?

/snigger.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
A unifying and "complete theory of design, composition or framing."

Like E=mc2.

Isn't that what some people call religion?


Before we get near an answer we might need to ask the right question.
Just because we have a question doesn't mean there is an answer.

It does seem that scientific method isn't being applied here.
It seems as if some people have an answer and go about finding examples that sort of fit as proof.

I've seen images with overlays showing 'golden' ratios and Fibonacci curves.
The fit like a thick sock on a limp cock.

If I'm to be convinces, come up with something better than some sort of religious belief or hammering a round peg into a square hole.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
A unifying and "complete theory of design, composition or framing."

Like E=mc2.

Isn't that what some people call religion?


Before we get near an answer we might need to ask the right question.
Just because we have a question doesn't mean there is an answer.

It does seem that scientific method isn't being applied here.
It seems as if some people have an answer and go about finding examples that sort of fit as proof.

I've seen images with overlays showing 'golden' ratios and Fibonacci curves.
The fit like a thick sock on a limp cock.

If I'm to be convinces, come up with something better than some sort of religious belief or hammering a round peg into a square hole.


Tom,

I am not trying to prove you wrong, just leave behind the need for exact tools. Round pegs in a square hole can work is there's a snug fit. One can anchor a round climbing pin in an odd shaped rock crevice safely! So the oft-used aphorism, not to use a "round peg in a square hole" is pretty good for theoreticians, but in practice can save your life!

Almost, but "not-quite-fitting" tools can work in a pinch, such as the nearest size metric wrench will work on a Whiworth U.S./UK bolt. When we started working out the "rules" of molecular biology, how nature codes for proteins, enzymes, muscles to be made, there's a fixed sequence.

DNA is used to make RNA and RNA makes protein and all inheritance is via transmitting chunks of DNA in our eggs and sperm. This became the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology. RNA was always considered to have the role of an intermediate information package, not capable of standing on its own in an life form. Then we discovered RNA viruses, and incrementally the "Central DogmA" had to be modified to accommodate this exception.​

Likewise, at first in looking at images, we might come up with some insights and come to believe some, rules". Just because we'll eventually find where this apparent mechanism doesn't fit, is no reason to throw away what works well. The task is to accommodate the exceptions and then understand what might be going on!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Tom,

I am not trying to prove you wrong, just leave behind the need for exact tools. Round pegs in a square hole can work is there's a snug fit. One can anchor a round climbing pin in an odd shaped rock crevice safely! So the oft-used aphorism, not to use a "round peg in a square hole" is pretty good for theoreticians, but in practice can save your life!

Almost, but "not-quite-fitting" tools can work in a pinch, such as the nearest size metric wrench will work on a Whiworth U.S./UK bolt. When we started working out the "rules" of molecular biology, how nature codes for proteins, enzymes, muscles to be made, there's a fixed sequence.

DNA is used to make RNA and RNA makes protein and all inheritance is via transmitting chunks of DNA in our eggs and sperm. This became the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology. RNA was always considered to have the role of an intermediate information package, not capable of standing on its own in an life form. Then we discovered RNA viruses, and incrementally the "Central DogmA" had to be modified to accommodate this exception.​

Likewise, at first in looking at images, we might come up with some insights and come to believe some, rules". Just because we'll eventually find where this apparent mechanism doesn't fit, is no reason to throw away what works well. The task is to accommodate the exceptions and then understand what might be going on!

Asher

So why are you using exact tools, Ash?
Is 'close enough' an act of compliance?
What sort of percentage error are you accepting, or not?
Are you using broad brush strokes or a fine line pen.
Which part do we blur to gain compliance: picture or overlay?

At the end of the day, if you can show me the value and truth in it all, I'm the first to go with you.
Unless you consider me a hopeless case.
I've changed my mind before, as you know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So why are you using exact tools, Ash?
Is 'close enough' an act of compliance?
What sort of percentage error are you accepting, or not?
Are you using broad brush strokes or a fine line pen.
Which part do we blur to gain compliance: picture or overlay?

At the end of the day, if you can show me the value and truth in it all, I'm the first to go with you.
Unless you consider me a hopeless case.
I've changed my mind before, as you know.

You described how you do your work and that's appreciated. I will do the same, but I have never indicated that I use the golden mean in my work. I look at the 2/3 rule at times, and if it appears to strengthen my work, I use it! From that don't assume any more than that. Worse, don't hold me accountable for your shopping list of ideas that I neither use nor even fully grasp!

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
When I was in engineering school, one of the most valuable things I learned, from a teaching assistant in a freshman lab course, was that 10/3, the square root of 10, and pi were essentially indistinguishable when making approximate calculations to, for example, verify the credibility of a more precisely computed result. (By making substitutions based on that outlook, one would often be able to cancel out various factors, leading to a much simplified expression to evaluate.)

So perhaps the theoretically-ideal place to erect a guideline (physical or just visualized) for guiding composition is actually 3/10 of the way across the frame, or maybe 1/pi of the distance across the frame.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
When I was in engineering school, one of the most valuable things I learned, from a teaching assistant in a freshman lab course, was that 10/3, the square root of 10, and pi were essentially indistinguishable when making approximate calculations to, for example, verify the credibility of a more precisely computed result. (By making substitutions based on that outlook, one would often be able to cancel out various factors, leading to a much simplified expression to evaluate.)

So perhaps the theoretically-ideal place to erect a guideline (physical or just visualized) for guiding composition is actually 3/10 of the way across the frame, or maybe 1/pi of the distance across the frame.

Best regards,

Doug

I just imagine a square in the center and test out at least one of my key elements on one of the corners.

Asher
 
Top