« AirDrop Problem? | Main | Quote o' the Day: Hannu Hautala »

Friday, 23 April 2021

Comments

Not really want to touch upon and break my own bubble of that. I am good you know :-))))))).

But for another game called go or weiqi or b something (in Korea), the amateur ranking in the old days was up to 6 Dan then professional 1 Dan. It is still separated until the chinese pro taking advantage of their non-pro status in those days. Even now they are separated. However in that case I still wonder whether at least you can have talent that can trump one of them in one of the game you know. But to a certain extent you really want the pro well above. Not just ...

And back to the subject, I wonder for photography of those birds (iron aside) and if one can hold a d3-d5 and 600 f4 .... is the difference that large you cannot have a few going. Half is greedy. One or two ... not point abd shoot though. (After typing the last word the st ansel using his 35mm contax ....sigh).

I used to play squash, badly. One day I asked an older colleague at work to play me.

I ran rings around him! Except slowly but surely I realized I was the only one running. Robin was barely moving as he forced me to run rings around him, first one way, then the other. I got a good workout, and a lesson in our relative squash abilities. I always appreciated that he let me figure it out slowly.

To Dennis' comment. I occasionally play Go. Many years ago I visited the Go club in San Francisco's Japantown to watch a visiting pro. The man looked like he was in his 80s at the time, and he was playing the top amateur in the club. After the game, he played through an analysis showing sequences of, as I recall, something like 20 moves to illustrate why a particular move had been a good or bad one because of its consequences. It is as much as I can do to remember part of a game, and this guy did it effortlessly. That's the difference between a pro and an amateur.

I've played golf for many years, and in my experience, most scratch (zero handicap) golfers know they couldn't make it as a pro, even if they yearn to. That's one of the things that makes golf the most magical of games -- at some point, no matter how hard you try, you can't get much better, and the difficulty usually isn't physical, it's mental. And as a mental thing, not a physical problem, you really believe in your heart that you should be able to improve, because it's *only* mental. But you can't. I was once told that the best way to judge a non-golfer's potential to play golf is how well he plays poker, because poker is all about decision-making and fear, and so is golf. Tiger Wood's unravelling is a case in point -- he didn't stop winning because he was suddenly physically inept, but because he came undone mentally. A pro golfer, by the way, would generally have a handicap of about –6, which is six strokes better than scratch, a level I can't even conceive of. Still, in any given round, I'll make at least a few shots that a pro would take in an instant, if given the chance to take them. (Wouldn't take my swing, or my decision making, but would take a particular result. That's another thing that makes golf magical.)

As design director I worked with many photographers, illustrators, designers or other visual artists. I remember situations in which I probably would have done a better job myself. But that’s an amateurish attitude. I would have been much too slow, too expensive and would have needed the evenings and weekends for it, because I also had other things to do.

In an ideal situation you can choose the right specialist for the job yourself. Often the client has an existing relation or someone on the payroll that you have to work with. Their professional level may vary.

It also happens that a client has a boyfriend who has a ‘professional camera.’ Or a wife who makes such beautiful knitting art, which would be very appropriate for the annual report.
Such cases are usually reason enough to refuse the job.

The worst level however is when clients want to be personally involved in the creative process. In those cases just throw in some technical verbs they don’t understand to let them now who’s the expert in charge.

Any time I start thinking that I'm any good as a photographer, I spend a few minutes looking at some of Peter Turnley's photographs.

This post reminded me of an interview with Gary Larson, creator of ‘The Far Side’ cartoon. This was near the time he quit doing a daily cartoon.
He said the stress of being on deadline every single day of the week finally wore him out. It was mentioned that a lot of the uninformed thought he had an easy job, ‘just come up with 10 cartoons and take the next two weeks off’ as if these were flooding out of his mind. Of course it didn’t work like that at all. He said somedays he would be sitting there with a blank paper and nothing was happening.

It's not a matter of "natural ability" or "just buckling down." To get the highest levels of anything takes endless hours of practice - and while you're going through those years of practice, not falling into one of the many traps that life sets up along the way.

This pretty well sums up why things look easy from a distance

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

On a personal level, the more I’ve learned about photography the less I feel like I know about photography. And life....

Success in sport is so capricious. You have to be incredibly talented; you have to work hard; you have to avoid injury, especially at the key moments in your career; and you just have to be lucky. You need to be able to shine, without being overshadowed. In that situation, I always think of Teodora Ungureanu. She was an Rumanian Olympic gymnast in the mid-70s, and she won some medals - silver and bronze. Extremely good though she was, there was someone else around at the same time and in the same team who was even better - Nadia Comaneci. She won all the gold medals, and she's the one who's remembered.

Another example would the 6 or more members of the 1992 FA Youth Cup winning team from Manchester United who weren't called Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, Neville or Butt. Those five players had stellar careers, the other 6 or so mostly didn't; but at the time you would not have been able to predict that it would be those five, and not the other six, would become household names.

This reminds me of this survey about taking a point off of Serena Williams.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/shortcuts/2019/jul/15/why-do-so-many-men-think-they-could-win-a-point-off-serena-williams

And I don't think it's just a man/woman thing. Lewis Hamilton (F1 World Champion) can go around a track in an F1 car in 1m30s. I bet if you asked 100 men if they could do the lap in 2m00s 10% would say yes. After all, anyone can drive a car fast!

Things ism an F1 car isn't a car. Yes it has wheels, an engine and a steering wheel, but it's really a guided missile. You need to be doing 120 mph for the downforce to work, need to be doing 10,000 rpm to stop it stalling and you need to take 3-4G every time you move the wheel or hit a pedal.

I think it just shows to me that the real professionals just make things look easy. That's why they're the best and why they earn so much.

Tom Kite once said the difference between professional and amateur golfers was the difference between lightning and lightning bugs.

This is true.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007