Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , nospam wrote:

In article
,

Sandman:
My claim is that if one person is more skilled at a given task
than another, it is because he has practiced it more, which
in turn is a result from a more eager interest in said task.
Not because he has a "born" ability to paint masterpieces or
a "born" ability to play the piano.

nospam:
bull****. some people have natural talents and others do not and
it has absolutely nothing to do with practice.

Sandman:
Of course it does.

nope.

nospam:
if it did, there would be more einsteins, picassos, pavarottis
and ansel adams.

Sandman:
And there are.

you're delusional.

but assuming there are, why hasn't anyone heard of them?

Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist. People like
Stephen Hawking, Nicola Tesla, Tim Berners-Lee, Alan Guth, Charles Townes and
many more are all exceptional scientists that are alive today (except Tesla).

When it comes to opera singers, there *is* a "born with it" factor to it, since
your physical body plays a part in how well you can perform what you do. It's not
"talent", but your voice capacity is important, like how "born with it" length is
important to a basketball player. Also, I'm not really all that interested in
opera singers, so it's hard to come up with a list of comparable people for me.

As for Picasso. Well, I wouldn't really call him a great artist I'm afraid. Most
of his art is not the result of actual skill with a brush but by being
revolutionary in his style, with cubism being the most prominent. Artists like
Warhol, Dali, Monet, Matisse, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Van Gogh, Munch, Vermeer,
Rembrandt are historical painters with - in my opinion - far more actual *skill*
than Picasso. There are lots of contemporary artists that far surpass the "skill"
of Picasso.

Ansel Adams is a well known landscape photographer with good technical skill, but
the list of great photographers is too long to list, both contemporary and
historically. And new ones pop up daily. To list just a few awesome photographers
that you haven't heard of: Yousef Karsch, Richard Avedon, Eugene Smith, Dorothea
Lange, Margaret Bourke, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Philippe Halsman, Robert Capa etc
etc.

--
Sandman

In article , newshound wrote:

Rich A:
I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of training.

Sandman:
Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is that it takes
10,000 hours of practice to excel at a given task. The problem is
having an interest that leads you to invest 10,000 hours into
that.

I'm with Rich and Floyd. I must have spent 10,000 hours trying to
play the guitar over the past 50 years, and I'm still rubbish.

Just to repeat: 10,000 hours is playing the guitar 8 hours every single work day
for a solid five years.

Also, as I've also said - it's a combination of time *and* interest. Anyone can
do something for 10k hours that they dislike and still be bad at it. But if those
10k hours are the result of an interest on your part, you will be good at it.

--
Sandman

| javascript is fine.

Javascript is not fine. Nearly all online risks
require javascript to work (aside from the problem
of people actually downloading and running malware
directly).

Javascript is not fine for the same reason that
Flash and Java are not fine: They're all essentially
software; executable code running through the
browser. Once executable code is allowed there's
no way to make it safe. Even on trusted websites
there can be ads or hacks allowing malicious script
to run.

Javascript was being phased out some years ago.
People enabling JS had fallen to 90% or less. Malware
was on the rise. JS wasn't needed for much but silly
special effects such as "rollovers". (Changing an image
when the mouse hovers over it.) So anyone who knew
about it would disable script. But then interactive
webpages became a big thing. Now most people are
spending the majority of their time online with social
media, webmail, etc. Those things just won't work
without script. As a result, the risks have been greatly
played down, because the online economy depends on
poor privacy and security protections. (Nearly all Windows
attacks require script, yet Microsoft rarely mentions
that.) Online service companies don't want people to
know about risks and their customers prefer not to be
told.

You may feel superior being on a Mac, and you
have good reason to. Macs haven't had much trouble
in the past. Apple acts like AOL for their customers,
controlling what can happen on a Mac. But the Mac
fan-base tends to be wealthy and unsophisticated
about tech. That's an attractive target for malware
writers. And just like people who don't do backup, you
won't know how wrong you were until it's too late.

Anyone who cares about security should at least
do a little research and educate themselves to learn
ways to improve their chances. Being an ostrich
and saying glibly that "javascript is fine" is not a
solution. With your head in the sand you can still
be kicked in the ass. And you will be, sooner or
later.

On 5/19/2015 10:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 19, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/19/2015 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Anyway I get my right eye refurbished tomorrow, so the World will have a
‘duck with 20/20 binocular vision to deal with.
Best of luck and I hope you do well.

Thanks!

I am having my right eye done on Friday, but not the lens adjustment. My
opthamologist doesn't think it would work for me.

Well if you don’t have problematic astigmatism you shouldn't need the toric
replacement lens. If my right eye turns out anything like the left eye I am
going to be a happy camper.
--

Regards,
Savageduck


Why do you wnt two left eyes?

--
PeterN

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Sandman:
My claim is that if one person is more skilled at a
given task than another, it is because he has practiced it
more, which in turn is a result from a more eager interest in
said task. Not because he has a "born" ability to paint
masterpieces or a "born" ability to play the piano.

nospam:
bull****. some people have natural talents and others do not and
it has absolutely nothing to do with practice.

Sandman:
Of course it does.

nospam:
if it did, there would be more einsteins, picassos, pavarottis
and ansel adams.

Sandman:
And there are.

But we have to assume they don't know it or havent had the
oppotunity to show it rather than haven't got it. I find it
difficult to believe that everyone could be an einstein as we know
they are physical differnies in the brains of all humans and not all
humans are identical.

The topic was skill, not intelligence. Sure, intelligence plays a part with
skill as well, but the topic was still whether or not "talent" to take great
photos is something we're born with or something we learn by practicing.

Sandman:
No, I was making a difference between practiced skill and an
unusual mind. I.e. some of the things autistic people can do
can't be practiced by a "normal" person.

If that is true then it proves pracitice would be a waste of time as
you'd never get as good as an autistic person.

True.

So why can't everyone be autistic to a certain degree ?

Because they aren't.

In the same way everyone can be homosexual to some degree.

Silliest thing you've written in a good while.

But of course anything art related is far more difficult to judge
than who is the fastest runner.

Which is why I haven't talked about art, only skill.

Sandman:
For normal people, talent does not exist, only skill.
Learned skill.

nospam:
bull****. complete bull****.

Sandman:
Thanks for your opinion. You always manage to provide it so
eloquently.

Seemed quite apt really

Worst endorsement nospam could ever get - praise from Dave.

--
Sandman

On 5/20/2015 10:59 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 20 May 2015 08:29:52 GMT, Sandman wrote:


snip

Einstein was no linguist, however.

What does that have to do with it? A linguist is a person who studies
languages, not a person who gives a great deal of attention to the
words he/she uses in a conversation. Not all linguists specialize in
lexical semantics.

Would that be a cunning linguist?

Seriously, Einstein had little problem communicating his most complex
thinking, in everyday language.

i.e. relativity: (paraphrasing.)
If you sit with an attractive woman for a few hours, it seems like a
minute. If you sit on a burning hot stove for ten seconds, it seems like
hours.


He stated in essence, that you don't really understand something unless
you can explain it to a small child.


--
PeterN

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 May 2015 06:36:01 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 01:15:40 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 19 May 2015 21:41:50 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Andreas
Skitsnack wrote:

Just for the record, here I am agreeing with nospam. The
propensity
to be good at something - which you might call "natural talent"
is
ingrained in people. Constant practice may improve one's skills
in
something, but those with natural talent will need less practice
and
be able to do whatever it is intuitively.

While "intuitively" is the wrong word completely, the above is a
pretty normal
reasoning from people that may look upon skilled people and explain
it in a way
that excludes themselves. "He's good with numbers", "She's got an
eye for
portraits", "He's got the rhythm in him".

The day you teach me how to use an English word is the day I'll
audition for the Royal Swedish Ballet troupe.


Just keep practicing you have said that it's the practice that makes
you good at something.

That's Popinjay's position, not mine. I have said that some have a
natural talent, and agree that practice may result in better skills,
but natural talent may be the primary reason that the person is able
to improve with practice.

Try to follow who's writing what.

I can practice every moment for my lifetime and I will never play a
guitar like Jimi Hendrix or play hockey like Wayne Gretzky. I don't
have the talent.

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 17:06:31 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 May 2015 06:36:01 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 01:15:40 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 19 May 2015 21:41:50 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Andreas
Skitsnack wrote:

Just for the record, here I am agreeing with nospam. The
propensity
to be good at something - which you might call "natural
talent"
is
ingrained in people. Constant practice may improve one's
skills
in
something, but those with natural talent will need less
practice
and
be able to do whatever it is intuitively.

While "intuitively" is the wrong word completely, the above is a
pretty normal
reasoning from people that may look upon skilled people and
explain
it in a way
that excludes themselves. "He's good with numbers", "She's got
an
eye for
portraits", "He's got the rhythm in him".

The day you teach me how to use an English word is the day I'll
audition for the Royal Swedish Ballet troupe.


Just keep practicing you have said that it's the practice that
makes
you good at something.

That's Popinjay's position, not mine. I have said that some have a
natural talent, and agree that practice may result in better
skills,
but natural talent may be the primary reason that the person is
able
to improve with practice.

Try to follow who's writing what.

I can practice every moment for my lifetime and I will never play a
guitar like Jimi Hendrix or play hockey like Wayne Gretzky. I don't
have the talent.

You then have to define the differencies bewteen a talent and a skill.

No I don't, that's been done already in this thread. If all it took was
practice and dedication to be great, there would be hundreds of Wayne
Gretzkys playing hockey. He has natural talent that cannot be learned.
It can be enhanced by practicing, but the talent must be there in the
first place.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

When it comes to opera singers, there *is* a "born with it" factor to it,
since
your physical body plays a part in how well you can perform what you do. It's
not
"talent", but your voice capacity is important, like how "born with it"
length is
important to a basketball player. Also, I'm not really all that interested in
opera singers, so it's hard to come up with a list of comparable people for
me.

in other words, it's not just practice, but being born with it.

once again you contradict yourself.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| javascript is fine.

Javascript is not fine. Nearly all online risks
require javascript to work (aside from the problem
of people actually downloading and running malware
directly).

not all javascript is risky. in fact, very little is.

nearly all online risks require installing and running executable code,
therefore with your risk-avoidance philosophy, c/c++, x86 asm and other
languages are not fine.

Javascript is not fine for the same reason that
Flash and Java are not fine: They're all essentially
software; executable code running through the
browser.

there's a big difference between a flash exploit and javascript.

Once executable code is allowed there's
no way to make it safe.

then you won't be running very many apps.

and your premise is false. it can be made safe with sandboxing. it
won't be 100% but nothing is 100% safe.

Even on trusted websites
there can be ads or hacks allowing malicious script
to run.

trusted sites don't normally have malicious scripts. it's possible they
could get hacked but it's exceptionally rare.

Javascript was being phased out some years ago.
People enabling JS had fallen to 90% or less.

bull****.

Malware
was on the rise. JS wasn't needed for much but silly
special effects such as "rollovers". (Changing an image
when the mouse hovers over it.) So anyone who knew
about it would disable script. But then interactive
webpages became a big thing. Now most people are
spending the majority of their time online with social
media, webmail, etc. Those things just won't work
without script. As a result, the risks have been greatly
played down, because the online economy depends on
poor privacy and security protections. (Nearly all Windows
attacks require script, yet Microsoft rarely mentions
that.) Online service companies don't want people to
know about risks and their customers prefer not to be
told.

javascript was never being phased out because it provides for a lot of
functionality people want.

You may feel superior being on a Mac, and you
have good reason to. Macs haven't had much trouble
in the past. Apple acts like AOL for their customers,
controlling what can happen on a Mac.

nonsense. apple has absolutely no control whatsoever in controlling
what can happen on a mac. where do people come up with such garbage?
anyone can write any software they want for the mac and apple cannot
stop them or block what they do.

you've been told this before yet you still spew bogus information.

But the Mac
fan-base tends to be wealthy and unsophisticated
about tech. That's an attractive target for malware
writers.

more nonsense, but even if it was true, why is there so little malware
on macs if it's such an attractive target? certainly the scammers would
want a piece of that wealth, no?

And just like people who don't do backup, you
won't know how wrong you were until it's too late.

i'm not the one who is wrong.

as for backups, they are very easy on a mac, which means more people do
them than on other platforms. it's as easy as plugging in a drive and
saying yes to using it for backups. it's perfect for the 'wealthy and
unsophisticated'.

Anyone who cares about security should at least
do a little research and educate themselves to learn
ways to improve their chances. Being an ostrich
and saying glibly that "javascript is fine" is not a
solution. With your head in the sand you can still
be kicked in the ass. And you will be, sooner or
later.

it's not me with their head in the sand.