|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/20/2007
|
Thanks a lot, Doyle!
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/20/2007
|
Hi Annemette!
To music: Amazing I find that not only communication of moods is possible but one can code anything into music. Building up a concept of a language is a hard thing - that's why it took thousands of years for us to develop languages. But one could say for example "How are you?" or "I am Nick" using music as the carrier agent. It sounds perhaps impossible but it is possible.
To brain: Though I didn't mean that, it is completely possible that a brain constructed with the laws that give birth to any phenomenon, will often act this way and produce something that is very similar to what those laws give birth to. But we must be very careful with such analogies. First of all the perception of similarity does not imply that two systems are similar at all. It is only how they "look" to us. A deeper inspection might prove the opposite. And then, there comes mathematics, there comes Goedel and the incompletness theorem. Such a system like the brain will produce also contradiction or will be incomplete. If it produces contradiction it goes contrary to the laws that made it - crazy but true and also necessary and very important. If it is incomplete then it will not be able to have "complete knowledge" of itself, in the sense that there will be things that it does... with "no real reason". (The reason does exist - it is only "unfindable".) This is also very important and essential. Only being able to be imperfect is the brain able to work and to have such a strength.
To Linux: It is not only democratic, it is anarchistic in the old sense of the world, it didn't need planning, it is colorful, chaotic, crazy. Perhaps the only project on the world up to now that was not "planned" and was carried out by thousands (or millions?) of people form every land without the need of meeting, managers, consultants and the like. But Linux is only one of the many unix-systems. Though the others were not developed this way, they are superior to any win OS. Oh, did I mention that the Mac is also unix now? Yeah, that was the marriage of the century! The powerful OS of unix and the sweet and easy interface of the Mac. Wow, I can only say!
To the written word: As long as comments are not taken for valuating statements but read without reading more than exists, the negotiation phase for setting up the common base is a piece of pie.
To the spinal chord. Maths predicted that decades ago. I am glad that it was experimentally found!
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 1/20/2007
|
Beautiful work Nick!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/19/2007
|
Yes, music is fascinating also as a mean of communication within theraphy for handicapped people. Some multihandicapped people that normally never response to anything has been found to response either to rythms, or to music if they can hear. Other handicapped people get more quality in life, are more calm and balanced, more able to communicate using music, more social and so forth. It seems like music does indeed touch something basically in all of us.
I donīt know much about Linux other than itīs a "democratic" system with all kinds of users and providers all over the world that are building it up together. What a project!
I see what you mean comparing it to the brain. Thereīs a intact base and there there are all the inputs coming in and changing and impacting the system without the kern being fundamentally changed. Well, at least that is what I think you mean?
A far out thought - can it be that we in many ways copy our brainfunction itself when building something complicated or abstract without knowing it?
Anyway good that we finally found a common base from where we can discuss. The written word can sometimes confuse more than enlighten.
Take care
Annemette
PS:I just read that Danish scientists have discovered that the spinal chord is far more advanced than earlier assumed with neurons working complicated like the brain. Fascinating discovery that I look forward hearing more about:-)
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/19/2007
|
Aaah, wait! If you speak about a *gifts* then I'm following you straight. Especially the "communication through music" seems to be much more wide spread than we think. Speach "shadows" it, and so most of us get used to speach and do not use nmusich as means for communications, but nonetheless we have it built-in.
As about Sille, well, same brain damage does not mean automatically same behavior, so chances are that she does have the same gift, but for some reason doesn't feel like using it.
Remarcably, limitations of brain in many domains seem to leave the "base-functionality" indeed untouched, like for example that strange built-in capability to follow some rhythm that we never encountered before. Of course, if somebody doesn't use this capability, we shouldn't apply pressure to that person to make it use it at the end, but nonetheless it is fascinating.
Talking about that, it really looks like an operating system to me. Many parts may get damaged and be disfunctional, but there is a very basic part (the kernel in Unix) that manages to stay intact and is really capable of giving the funtionality needed for reparing the rest. Of course our brain is much more complicated but there seems to be a main part, something like a "fundamental unit of software" that is really extremely, unimaginably strong. I think that the best possible architecture is to put such basic functuionality inside that kernel, like for example all gifts, in order to protect them as good as possible from any damage.
And it seems just as if this were exactly the case. The main funtionality is there and the rest just waits to be formed. The very funny thing, dear Annemette, is that we built such operating systems without knowing that our brain has a similar architecture! It was after making Unix that we discovered such things about the brain.
Which means: Win has no chance! We are all Unix! And so this is why we are all...uniques??? ;-)
Excuse my eloquence here, but I am enthusiastic for Unix and also for understanding you now. You see, this is the right method. Argueing at first as long as it takes for a common base of definitions, in order to ensure good communications once and for all. Else we would go further and build up something on the base of incompatible definitions and after a long time of "agreeing" we would notice that we didn't communicate at all.
Go unix, stay unique!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/19/2007
|
But you still misunderstand me, Nick. I was talking about the gift of music that runs in my family quite strongly. I havenīt got it unfortunately other than a bit of cozytime playing the guitar;-)
Christina however seems to have it from birth to continue the talk about talent/gifts. It was not the humming only that I emphasized- itīs especially the fact that she can hum a melody from start to end after hearing it only once. From very little sheīs communicated by use of music and humming even though sheīs severely braindamaged and canīt speak.
My littlesister Sille has the exactly same rare braindamage, but she canīt hum, canīt use the music in the same way.
I was merely pointing out how amazing itīs to experience how even such a braindamaged girl expresses a gift, when sheīs so limitted in so many ways, and also hasnīt been able to play instruments and the likes. At least we find it to be quite fascinating in the family and are delighted that she at least can have this gift when being so unfortunate from birth.
I hope you understand what I meant now. I didnīt mean that humming was a talent.
Take care
Annemette
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/19/2007
|
The wish to find and tell the truth clearly is not the wish to misinterpret but to understand.
It turnes out that humans were able to draw/paint much earlier than they could write. And in recent times it is strongly assumed (though not exactly known) that they could also produce melodies and follow rhythms before they could speak.
Actually it is already proved that real alphabets and languages are representable with such "sounds". The opposite is not true: We can't represent a song by usage of any finite set of written signs on paper. So, a letter might as well be thought as consisting of such "sounds"
It seems that these things are much more elementary - more basic - than for example language. Not much brain activity is needed for them. It might sound not very good, but if we examine that exactly we see that it says something very surprising: We have a base of elementary things that might perhaps prove to be common to all of us.
The ability to hum is no talent. If we name it talent then it is a talent in exactly the same way like for example... breathing. Your other sister might not do that but this is then either a sign of some specific brain danage - or perhaps also for bigger brain capacity, since he could perhaps do that implicitely and not let anybody know. Many persons do that.
As about "misinterpreting every word you say", this is not misinterpratation but presentation of well known facts. And it is not about every word you say, but specifically about your argumentation on talents in general based on the observation of persons in your family. You can hardly expect anybody to discuss seriously about such things without opposing your statement about "born" talents based on your humming sister, Annemette.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/19/2007
|
Iīm sorry that your only wish is to be negative and that you want to misinterpret every word that I say.
I didnīt talk about humming like you and I do. I talk about a seriously handicapped sister who is non-verbal and whoīs severely braindamaged, but nevertheless she can hum, and she can do it accurately after hearing any melody once be it claasical, rock whatever. My littlesister canīt do this whatsoever.
Annemette
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/18/2007
|
Despite the widely wrong usage of the world "talent", what is naturally born is the gift, not the talent. Skill is the result of gift+much work. And talent is the mature state in which the talent has found its best possible expression through conscious transformation of ideas into artistic work.
I am about to smile very tired having to listen about the talent of your sister who... humms songs. Tell her to go for the next grammy. If that's talent, then your standards must be very low.
Oh, did you notice that every human being is humming songs now and then? OK, let's assume that we are all naturally born talents in sinnging, just about in many other disciplines, since we all do sing and play guitars and shoot photos often.
A world of such "talents" would remain a world of dilletantic indivuduals. Thanks heavens those who do care have another opinion.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/18/2007
|
Youīre wrong, dear Nick. Talents ARE born, but they also have to be trained to blossom.
My uncle was born with the gift of being able to play all kinds of instruments. He did that as a very small boy and has always been living from playing music. This is a gift that appears randomnly in the family.
My two non-verbal braindamaged sisters are very different when it comes to music. My oldest sister seems to have inherited this special talent for music whereas my youngest sister didnīt. She humms a song from start to end after hearing it once and has alway been so eager about music in another way than my littlesister who just loves listening to it.
But yes, talents also need nourishment.
Annemette
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/18/2007
|
Oh, and not to forget: Talents, Annemette, are not naturaly born. They don't fall from the sky, despite what the fans of the talents might say. Talents have to be *worked* out!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/18/2007
|
I think I already described what exactly I don't like.
Dreaming is nothing special. Everybody can do that in his/her own way. of course not everybidy considers plants and flowers as "dreamy" but that's anothe stiry which naive naturalists won't understand. Some dustbin on the street can be moire "dreamy" than any natural scene, but let's stay at "dreamy" the limited way you seem to understand this word.
To consider something dreamy is the easiest thing of the world. No special skilss required. But only the very few realize that to be able to capture that dream on film or CCD or on the strings of a guitar, the next steo *has* to be taken. It is a step that is superior to just plain dreaming. It is the step that separates the many "nice flowers" form the few photos that blow one's mind.
To take this strep one *has* to decouple from that dreamy (and completely unfruitful) state and.. work in a conscious way, for learning all that "machanical part" of which we hear so often that it is not as important as the "feeling". It is really strange to listen for example to the fans at some concert. Most would start talking abizut "the feeling" and such, but ask the operformer in the scene (or the artist in front of the canvas) and listen to what they say, and how they manage toi capture feelings and dreams. It is hardest hardest work.
The dream is thevery first step. Even babies do that. Arts demand much more. And most if it is work.
Now, as about skills, of course they don't grow on trees, but they are also no matter of "magic" and "wonder". They can be excersised, we can learn, we can grow. But ine thing should be clear here. You can have knowledge without skill, but you never can have skill without knowledge. And in the case of photography knowledge is exactly that so called "mechanical" part of apertures and hypefocals and exposures and reflectors and so on, that most of the people seem to consider as some unnecessary ballast.
If Eddie wouldn't play guitar at least 12 hours a day until his fingers bleed, he would remain with some kind of unshaped, uncultivated, uninteresting sound, just like the hundreds of "dreamers" that imitated him. You can't distinguish one from the other since they wanted to have "style" without having first *substance*.
Last notice: I use "you" as a synonym for "one" or "somebody" here.
Take care and take a book about optics too! ;-)
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/18/2007
|
Dear Nick
Oh, I had the impression that you in general didnīt care for any dreamy shots?
"Romantic dreamy scenes" are good for the soul to feel happy, to find some kind of peace and to let the imagination run.
Anyway Iīm no fool. I know that a dreamy image doesnīt always appear out of nowhere.
I donīt have the necessary skills yet to make images like that. Thatīs why I comment and learn and furthermore I have a file where I save the good advice I get.
When getting another camera sometime, I plan to experiment a lot using this advice, but my current camera doesnīt seem to give me the opportunities. Iīm looking for.
Finally I must say that technique is important but if one doesnīt have an eye, a talent for a good motive then techniqal knowledge means very little. It is the combination of both that provides us with amazing memorable images.
A good psychologist is someone that has a sense of people and empathy in combination with the skills and knowledge that are learned step-by-step. Knowledge by itself doesnīt always do the trick.
Van Halen and other talented musicians have trained a lot, I donīt doubt your words, but good muscicians are also the ones who feel the music and have a talent for it. Otherwise it gets too mechanical.
One canīt put one part on a piedestal and forget the other. Itīs always a combination of talents that makes something roll!;-)
Thanks for the talk.
Take care
Annemette
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/17/2007
|
Many many thanks for the nice comment, Mehul!
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/17/2007
|
Thanks a lot for your comment, Annemette!
What I dislike is not a dreamy photo itself, but the rather immature illusion of being able to capture it by just point and shooting. The scene might be as dreamy as it gets but unfortunately the camera does not belong to that dream. It is rather a very physical and a quite existing object, that needs to be controlled exactly in order to capture the scene. Since cameras do not think and even less dream, it is the photographer that *has* to deal with all the tiny details of settings, composition, metering, and the like, or else the camera will not catch the scene but rather something that bares most of the charm that the photographer saw. To make all these adjustments in a mentally aware state we *have* to learn plain optics, physics, technology! And this is not just dreaming around smiling at the sun and expecting to get better. This is hardest work that includes calculations, experimenting, interpretations of bad results, and so on.
In addition, the very subject of "romantic dreamy scenes" is a rather unfruitable one for further thoughts, since it can be only beautiful. And that's all! What kind of interpretation could we apply to this scene here, except that it is "nice"?
Still, even in the domains of naive naturalism, the "romantic feelings" of the human that looks through the view finder are simmply NOT enough for capturing the scene. One has to learn, to read, to try out, and all that systematically! The photographer departs from the dream in order to be able to control a camera in real world and catch the dream - and believe me, what you see in your display is not the photo that you'll get. Even in digital cameras.
After all, even the psychologist does not interprete dreams by dreaming but by *thinking* and having all the *knowledge* that does not simply jump into one's mind but has to be *learned* step by step in a process that leads to maturity in some domain.
To re-use the analogy to music, even EVH didn't play his brown sound immediately after touching a guitar for the first time. He was excercising and learning and tryining things out in a completely aware state, thinking about possibilities and applying his knowledge for finding his way. The explosive solo "Eruption" in VH1 is not the result of dreaming.
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
Mehul Chimthankar
{K:18655} 1/17/2007
|
Hi Nick,
Nice DOF, and good tones
Mehul
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/17/2007
|
This one is beautiful and dreamy although that is sth. that you dislike. Probably one of your best shots. The white blurry background, the DOF and balance works well.
Best wishes
Annemette
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/17/2007
|
Thank you very much for the comment and the nice words, Maryanne! Trying my best to keep it up.
Nick
|
|
|
|
Maryanne Murillo
{K:11617} 1/17/2007
|
Very nice. You have a good eye for composition and the skill to realize it. Nice work.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/16/2007
|
That's true Andre! So many people with the own vision and style, and it's a pity to not notice all those photos which do not "flash" but rather reveal their own character after careful and dedicated looking/thinking.
Perhaps the many "one lined commands" are nothing else but a manifestation of the same "quick and flashy" way to look at photos? After all, the typical "wow!" comment, feels much like speaking because of an impression that is so quickly replaced by the next.
Many would say "if you don't like it immediately then you do like it at all", but to them one can reply "even if you like it immediately, most of the time you don't really know why, until you look exactly".
Oh well, let's try to keep our eyes *carefully* open - and not only for not letting the dust come into them ;-)
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/16/2007
|
Many thanks for the nice detailed comment, Emiliano!
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 1/16/2007
|
Hi Nick,
We can use that musical analogy again. Just as with some music, it takes a few listenings to grow to like or appreciate it.
That is one of the problems with the way most of us view Usefilm images. They all seem to go by in a flash, so sometimes it is only the "eye candy" that gets noticed. There are so many good images out there by a lot of talented people, and not enough time to visit them all properly.
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
emiliano chionaky
{K:3135} 1/16/2007
|
very nice composition! I love that kind of in/out focus and vertical lines
congratulations
emiliano
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/16/2007
|
Thank you very much, Andre! To tell you the truth I also hesitated to post it at first, but while looking and looking at it again and again it somehow won me too.
Have a nice day and thanks again,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/16/2007
|
Many thanks, Leo!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/16/2007
|
Thank you very much, Paul! A shalow DoF can be as nice as a deep one, I guess.
Have a nice day,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/16/2007
|
Thanks a lot, Fabio! Micro-jungle... hmm, another possible name for this! Thanks for the nice idea!
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 1/16/2007
|
Hi Nick,
I wasn't sure about this one at first, but it has won me over. The colours, especially that silvery light you talk about are very nice in this one. I like what you have done with the DOF too.
Andre
|
|
|
|
Leo Régnier ЯĢ
{K:67696} 1/16/2007
|
Fantastic Nick!!!
Leo
|
|
|
|
The Pilgrim
{K:64989} 1/15/2007
|
Indeed Nick! Very nicely shot! I like the back ground and the shallow depth of field! Nice colors and border to match!
Great job my friend!
Congrats
Paul E Brumit
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
{K:81109} 1/15/2007
|
very fine micro-jungle :))
|
|
0 
