P3D Mathphobia rationalized

["Andrea Blair" <asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>George Gioumousis wrote: I must admit I suffer from mathphilia 
almost as much as the rest of the world suffers from mathphobia. 
However, the tone of this thread, to me, was that looking at the theory 
was a useless exercise, and that is what I object to.<<<<

There is nothing wrong with *mathphilia*, and I don't think this is an 
"us against the rest of the world" issue. People enjoy math (and 
everything else) in varying degrees, from none to X (you math people can 
find the formula for this and fill in the "X"  {:>) ).

I must disagree with your comment that this thread has had overtones of 
math and theory as being useless. What I, and several others, have been 
trying to (politely) say is that it it not *required* in certain 
instances, such as for beginners in photography. 

>>>>Let me go to the particular, on your comment that the group has 
shown that we can get results even without using a meter. In my serious 
photography I specialize in photographing wild-flowers with a high-end 
SLR, with an auto-focussing macro lens and multiple options on auto 
exposure. However, for reasons that I understand, I get much better 
results turning off the auto-exposure and using the f/16 rule. What 
galls me is that the f/16 rule mostly described in this group is 
dead wrong. Usually, the rule is stated as 100 speed film at f/16 at
1/100 of a second. As an afterthought, it is added that this only
works between 10 am and 3 pm.<<<<

And the rest of us don't do *serious* photography? {:>) Like a lot of 
things we have discussed in this forum, the "Sunny 16" *rule* is 
actually a guideline to do in a pinch. It works for some situations and 
doesn't for others. Like the "Rule of Thirds," "Shoot Moving Water at 
less than 1/15 sec," "Use Your Hand as a Gray Card," and many other 
golden *rules* of photography. All guidelines. Nothing more. Nothing 
less. To apply them effectively under a broader range of circumstances - 
practice, practice, practice!

What a coincidence! I also specialize in close-up flower photography, 
although a lot of mine is done indoors. I also use a high-end 35mm auto 
focus SLR. And I use a 100mm macro lens, but I always take it off 
autofocus as I know (from experience) that I will get better results. On 
the other hand, I use my camera's built in meter and get great results 
98% of the time.

>>>>A little bit of thought, maybe not physics or math, should suggest 
that the season, the latitude, and the position in the time zone would 
affect the amount of light. I know that there are more than six hours of 
f/16 in mid-summer at my latitude, and much less in mid-winter. I know 
because I understand the theory, but before then I played with a 
reflected light meter and a gray card, so I knew then by experiment.<<<<

You're right, of course! But in the real world, not everyone thinks of 
these things as having such an impact on a simple *guideline*. Tell a 
beginner that they have to take their latitude into consideration when 
shooting and they'll look at you like you're nuts! Every guideline can 
be expanded to consider the numerous variables. This is what we call 
*experience* and *knowledge*. Practice, practice, practice! {:>)

>>>>However, I am not jealous of your getting prizes and honors for your 
pictures.<<<<

Good. But I do apologize for the remark I made. It was uncalled for in 
this discussion.

>>>>I mostly get annoyed at the attitude that an interest in math is 
somehow weird, because it gives a bad impression to the 
youngsters. On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't worry about the
younger generation, I've had students fighting to get into the math
and computer science class I'm teaching at San Jose State University.
I'm sure some of them really care, even though a lot of them are
mainly interested in it as a requirement for graduation.<<<<

Why do you get the impression that I (or anyone else here) think math is 
weird? And I never said it gives a bad impression to youngsters (where 
did that come from?). Would it surprise you to know that math was not 
only my favorite subject in school, but my best one? I actually enjoy 
it. I just don't feel it has to be obsessively applied to the simplest 
of tasks. Oh, yeah, I'm also a computer geek.

>>>>I do bring a few slides to a stereo club in this area, mainly
because I like to see them projected, but in the process they get
entered in the competition, and once in a while I place someplace.
Nice, but I don't take the pictures for the glory.<<<<

First and foremost, I take pictures because I enjoy photography. Always 
have, and, presumably, always will. The "glory" and the awards are just 
icing on the cake. Not necessary, but really, really nice. {:>)

I also take my images to our club to see them projected. We have a 
"Show-n-Tell" portion in our program for members to share their images. 
This is the most enjoyable part of our meeting to me. I get to see what 
my stuff looks like (good time to check for mounting errors) and, even 
better, I get to see what my 3-D comrades have been doing. I only wish 
that more members would share their images.

>>>>Then, right now some of my flat pictures are getting published in an 
article about my wife's California Native Plant garden, which is 
also nice.<<<<

That's great! Congratulations (to you both). It is nice to see the 
product of your efforts in print, isn't it? (After three covers and 
three articles with photos, I still enjoy seeing my work in print)

As this thread is winding down, I would like to take this time to thank 
all of our *mathphiles* (?) for their contributions, especially Tom 
Deering and his spreadsheets. There has been a plethora of information 
and references provided to aid those who wish to go "beyond the basics" 
and explore the meaning behind the *rules*. With your expertise and 
knowledge, the rest of us now know where to look to find the answers we 
seek now or may seek at some future time.

Just don't force it down our throats and we won't stick our heads in the 
sand!  {:>)

THANKS, gang. This has been really interesting. I may even play with a 
few formulas (but I'm not telling any of you! {:>) )

Andrea S. Blair
asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2948
***************************